• 28 percent of Latino/a transgender people live in extreme poverty, with an income of less than $10,000/year.
• Latino/a transgender people face incredibly high rates of HIV infection, with 8.44 percent reporting they are HIV-positive and an additional 10.23 percent reporting they did not know their status. The chart at right shows how disproportionate these rates are.
• 47 percent of Latino/a respondents reported having attempted suicide.
• 77 percent of Latino/a respondents attending school reported experience harassment, and 21 percent had to leave their schools because it was so severe.
• When the unemployment rate for the general public was 7 percent, it was 20 percent for Latino/a transgender people.
• 23 percent of Latino/a transgender people reported being refused medical care due to bias.

Read the full report in English or Spanish for more information. Today’s report is a product of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and the League of United Latin American Citizens. The Task Force previously released a report examining the experience of people who are black/African-American and transgender.

It turns out, Wachovia had been receiving warnings for years from a senior anti-money laundering officer in its own London office, Martin Woods. Yet, Woods’ words of caution weren’t only met with indifference. Wachovia reportedly retaliated against Woods and essentially drove him out of his job. The Observer recently reported:

Rather than launch an internal investigation into Woods’s alerts over Mexico, Woods claims Wachovia hung its own money-laundering expert out to dry. [...] On 16 June Woods was told by Wachovia’s head of compliance that his latest SAR [suspicious activity report] need not have been filed, that he had no legal requirement to investigate an overseas case and no right of access to documents held overseas from Britain, even if they were held by Wachovia. [...]

“Wachovia had my résumé, they knew who I was,” says Woods. “But they did not want to know – their attitude was, ‘Why are you doing this?’ They should have been on my side, because they were compliance people, not commercial people. But really they were commercial people all along. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. This is the biggest money-laundering scandal of our time.

At some point, Woods received a letter from the bank’s compliance managing director which accused him of failing “to perform at an acceptable standard.” In 2008, Woods sued Wachovia for bullying and detrimental treatment of a whistleblower. Wachovia settled that case too and agreed to pay an undisclosed amount under the condition that Woods leave the bank.

To this day, not a single bank has been indicted for violating the anti-money-laundering Bank Secrecy Act. Meanwhile, foreign government agencies in the United Kingdom, Mexico, and Colombia, along with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime have all reportedly documented money laundering by the banking industry. According to Al Día, financial institutions such as Bank of America, American Express, Western Union, the Mexican offices of Citigroup, the European HSBC and Banco Santander have all “helped move money for Mexican cartels.”

Meanwhile, the drug war has claimed the lives of at least 35,000 people since 2006 in Mexico alone. Senior U.S. commanders told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that Mexico and Central America make up one of the most dangerous regions in the world, rivaling the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And as the U.S. continues to pour millions of dollars into fighting the drug war in Mexico, U.S. drug users contribute approximately $40 billion a year to Latin American cartels — money which apparently often ends up passing through U.S. banks.

State Department spokesman Charles Luoma-Overstreet said the law has impacted relations between the United States and Latin American countries, becoming a topic of discussion “in all our interactions” with those nations.

“The countries in Latin America are already perceiving some distance and disengagement from the U.S.,” said Mauricio Cardenas, director of the Latin American Initiative at the Brookings Institution. “(The Arizona law) makes Latin America more and more interested in developing stronger relations with other parts of the world.” [...]

Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, worries that Obama’s stance on the law may not be enough to soothe other countries. “I’m sure that Mexico is happy that the Obama administration is challenging these laws. But I’m not sure they’re persuaded that the Obama administration is in control,” Alden said. “The worry is that the states are going to start driving the bus, too.”

Alden said it’s the latest in a long line of slights to the region that started with the Bush administration and has continued under Obama. [...] “If you put (the Arizona law) on top of all that, it’s the latest in a pretty long series,” Alden said.

Alden makes a compelling point. Americans weren’t the only ones hoping for change in 2008. In testimony before Congress delivered earlier this year, Peter Hakim of the Inter-American Dialogue noted that “no event since John F. Kennedy’s election in 1960 was more welcomed in Latin America or held out greater expectations for improving the region’s ties with the U.S. than Barack Obama’s electoral victory in November 2008.” Nonetheless, Hakim also noted, “U.S. policy remains largely unchanged and it is hard to identify a single Latin American country that has a better relation with Washington today than it did during President Bush’s tenure.”

Hakim explicitly pointed to the absence of immigration reform. A similar criticism was put forth by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) when George W. Bush was still president in 2008. In its report, “U.S.-Latin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality,” CFR wrote that “the failures of U.S. immigration policy have become a foreign policy problem.” CFR noted that though the U.S. tends to think of immigration as a domestic policy issue, it inherently has a “profound impact” on Latin American nations. “The tenor of recent immigration debates and the failure to pass meaningful immigration reform have hurt U.S. standing in the region, as many Latin American nations (including those without large populations in the United States) perceive current laws as discriminatory and unfair toward their citizens,” explained the report, two years before Arizona passed the harshest immigration law in the country. The CFR Task Force recommended enacting immigration reform to meet U.S. security, economic, and foreign policy interests.

The Task Force also pointed out that while the U.S. lags in its response to 21st century migration patterns, Latin American governments are ahead of the curve. “Latin American governments are pushing forward concrete policies to address the accelerating movement of people within the region as well as capitalize on migration to the United States,” wrote CFR. “U.S. policies lag far behind those of Latin American governments in adapting to the realities of increased human mobility.”

Earlier in her letter, Clinton reasons that Yzaguirre’s nomination has been held up “for reasons completely unrelated to his credentials or fitness to serve.” Indeed, the fact that Kyl is bitter over the fact that the Iran Sanctions Act doesn’t make the Iranian people as miserable as he would like them to be has little do with U.S. interests in the Caribbean. And, as Clinton notes, the Dominican Republic is “a significant trading partner” and “a major hub for our relief and reconstruction efforts in neighboring Haiti.” The U.S. embassy in the Dominican Republic has been without a permanent ambassador for over 18 months. An aide from Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) office pointed out that, if his nomination does not go through tonight, the Dominican Republic will have to wait at least another five weeks until congressional recess is over to have an ambassador.

Republicans in Congress have both blocked and delayed a number of critical nominations over reasons that have nothing to do with the qualifications of the nominees themselves. This past fall, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) brazenly blocked the confirmations of Arturo Valenzuela, Obama’s nominee to be assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, and Thomas A. Shannon Jr., the nominee to be ambassador to Brazil over the Obama administration’s refusal to recognize the de facto Honduran government of Roberto Micheletti. Shortly after DeMint agreed to drop his opposition to Shannon, Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) decided to further delay Shannon’s critical confirmation over the innocent role he played in initiating talks with Cuba on family migration and direct mail service.

Last week, following Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s speech before Congress, many conservatives blasted Calderon for slamming Arizona’s new immigration law and “meddling” in U.S. politics. “It’s about us. It’s about our citizenry,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “I just think that’s a line I would prefer that he did not cross. He went farther than I’m comfortable with,” stated Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). A statement released by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) read, “It’s unfortunate and disappointing the president of Mexico chose to criticize the state of Arizona by weighing in on a U.S. domestic policy issue during a trip that was meant to reaffirm the unique relationship between our two countries.” However, Calderon isn’t the first international figure to voice his concerns over the law. In fact, he joins a loud chorus of global leaders who have criticized the drastic measures that Arizona is taking to lock out undocumented immigrants:

CENTRAL AMERICA: The Guatemalan Foreign Ministry issued a press release soon after Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB-1070 into law, deploring the measure and expressing the government’s “deep concern” for the threat it represents to basic justice. The new government of Honduras also condemned the law. “Honduras considers that the passing of the law is the wrong step and does nothing to resolve the core problems behind of illegal immigration,” said Minister of the Presidency María Antonieta Guillén. Officials in El Salvador urged its citizens to avoid traveling to Arizona, and in Nicaragua, officials called on the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations (UN) “to take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights of the Hispanic population.”

SOUTH AMERICA: The Chilean Secretary of OAS, José Miguel Insulza, responded to Nicaragua’s request by expressing “the concern of the OAS, its Secretary General, the countries of the hemisphere and the Latin American community with the passage of a law in a state of the United States that we consider to be discriminatory against immigrants, and in particular against a population of such origin that lives in this country.” Heads of state and foreign ministers of the 12-member Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) slammed SB-1070, stating that it encourages “discretional detention of people based on racial, ethnic, phenotypic, language and migratory status reasons under the questionable concept of ‘reasonable doubt.’”

EUROPE: After reviewing the law, UN experts based in Geneva, Switzerland stated that SB-1070 could violate international standards that are binding in the United States. “A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin,” the experts said. Amnesty International, whose headquarters is based in London, agreed, calling the law “cruel and misguided” and in violation of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

AFRICA: South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has been an outspoken critic of Arizona’s immigration law. “Abominations such as apartheid do not start with an entire population suddenly becoming inhumane. They start here. They start with generalizing unwanted characteristics across an entire segment of a population,” wrote Tutu. “A solution that degrades innocent people, or that makes anyone with broken English a suspect, is not a solution.”

When it comes down to it, Arizonans may not care about what the international community has to say about its controversial new law, but global leaders have every right to care about what might happen to their countrymen and woman who visit, live, or travel through their state. In the end, it’s not meddling, it’s diplomacy with a stick.

Last week, following Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s speech before Congress, many conservatives blasted Calderon for slamming Arizona’s new immigration law and “meddling” in U.S. politics. “It’s about us. It’s about our citizenry,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “I just think that’s a line I would prefer that he did not cross. He went farther than I’m comfortable with,” stated Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). A statement released by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) read, “It’s unfortunate and disappointing the president of Mexico chose to criticize the state of Arizona by weighing in on a U.S. domestic policy issue during a trip that was meant to reaffirm the unique relationship between our two countries.” However, Calderon isn’t the first international figure to voice his concerns over the law. In fact, he joins a loud chorus of global leaders who have criticized the drastic measures that Arizona is taking to lock out undocumented immigrants:

CENTRAL AMERICA: The Guatemalan Foreign Ministry issued a press release soon after Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB-1070 into law, deploring the measure and expressing the government’s “deep concern” for the threat it represents to basic justice. The new government of Honduras also condemned the law. “Honduras considers that the passing of the law is the wrong step and does nothing to resolve the core problems behind of illegal immigration,” said Minister of the Presidency María Antonieta Guillén. Officials in El Salvador urged its citizens to avoid traveling to Arizona, and in Nicaragua, officials called on the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations (UN) “to take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights of the Hispanic population.”

SOUTH AMERICA: The Chilean Secretary of OAS, José Miguel Insulza, responded to Nicaragua’s request by expressing “the concern of the OAS, its Secretary General, the countries of the hemisphere and the Latin American community with the passage of a law in a state of the United States that we consider to be discriminatory against immigrants, and in particular against a population of such origin that lives in this country.” Heads of state and foreign ministers of the 12-member Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) slammed SB-1070, stating that it encourages “discretional detention of people based on racial, ethnic, phenotypic, language and migratory status reasons under the questionable concept of ‘reasonable doubt.’”

EUROPE: After reviewing the law, UN experts based in Geneva, Switzerland stated that SB-1070 could violate international standards that are binding in the United States. “A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin,” the experts said. Amnesty International, whose headquarters is based in London, agreed, calling the law “cruel and misguided” and in violation of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

AFRICA: South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has been an outspoken critic of Arizona’s immigration law. “Abominations such as apartheid do not start with an entire population suddenly becoming inhumane. They start here. They start with generalizing unwanted characteristics across an entire segment of a population,” wrote Tutu. “A solution that degrades innocent people, or that makes anyone with broken English a suspect, is not a solution.”

When it comes down to it, Arizonans may not care about what the international community has to say about its controversial new law, but global leaders have every right to care about what might happen to their countrymen and woman who visit, live, or travel through their state. In the end, it’s not meddling, it’s diplomacy with a stick.

Now we’ll be able to share Social Security, we’ll have all the rights as other couples — because we’re worth it…It’s a personal celebration, but also a public and political one. We have to sacrifice our intimacy so the world can see that Latin America and Argentina is opening up to judicial equality.

The milestone marriage took place the same year that Colombia’s Constitutional Court ruled that gay couples must be afforded full equal rights and a week after Mexico City became the first Latin American capital to pass a law legalizing gay marriage. An Argentinian Supreme Court justice indicated that the high court would likely rule on issues of same-sex marriage sometime in 2010 as a bill that would legalize gay marriage has been stalled in Argentina’s Congress since October.

Meanwhile, starting in 2010, gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia. While reporter David Knowles points out that gay marriage opponents have far from accepted defeat in the U.S., recent data which shows that younger Americans are much more supportive of gay marriage than older people suggests these opponents will be facing an uphill battle in the years to come.

So let’s take a time out to note that the Obama administration’s approach to Honduras looks to be paying off in the form of a deal that will temporarily re-instate President Zelaya in advance of new elections to be held in January. The US has an unfortunate history of backing coups in Latin America and an unfortunate history of heavy-handed involvement in Latin American domestic politics, so threading the needle between heavy-handed involvement and coup-backing was difficult. But they got the job done, and as Tim Fernholz says the results are likely to be appreciated throughout the region.

The Summit of the Americas went down just a few days ago, and we were treated to the view that not only is bona fide leftist dictator Fidel Castro so horrible that we should attempt to starve the victims of his misgovernment into line, but also that essentially all the democratically elected left-of-center leaders across Latin America—from Rafael Correa to Daniel Ortega to Hugo Chavez to Evo Morales to Cristina Kirchner are America’s enemies. And to the end of defeating these guys, American conservatives have a long history of backing America-friendly military dictators. Just a few years ago the Bush administration backed a coup against Chavez. The Somoza regime that Ortega overthrew in the late 1970s had been backed for years by the United State. Many American conservatives were so in love with Argentina’s military dictatorship that they were inclined to support it even against Saint Margaret Thatcher.

Back to basics, the origin of the term is that a “banana republic” is a Latin American despotism being propped up by the United States government at the behest of US-owned fruit exporters. It’s a specifically left-wing form of derision for the sort of historical abuses of American power in the Western Hemisphere that conservatives can’t even bring themselves to acknowledge.

I have a new column up at The Daily Beast about the handshake of doom and the need for a shift to a post-Cold War policy toward Latin America:

Nowadays, the Soviets are long gone. And with them, all rationale for looking at the region through this lens. There’s just no way to imagine a military threat to the United States emerging from Latin America. For all the rhetorical heat generated by Chavez’s clashes with the American right, all he really wants from America is for Citgo to sell us oil and gas. And guess what? All we want from Venezuela is the ability to buy oil and gas. Latin America is close by, and, over a century, American meddling in its affairs has generated a lot of ill will. That ill will generates a certain number of movements powered by America-bashing rhetoric. The absolute worst thing we can do is respond by entering into a downward spiral of recriminations and cold shoulders that only builds more ill will. The best approach is to recognize that our interests in Latin America are limited in scope, so we should just do our best to be polite—cooperate with those governments who want to cooperate with us, and shake hands with the rest while perhaps making some small talk.

Instead, conservatives would have us double-down on decades of failed Cuba policy by extending the same treatment to Chavez and perhaps others such as Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega. Realistically, all such a policy can achieve is antagonizing other Latin American leaders who don’t have the luxury of imperiously “isolating” their neighbors to create a self-fulfilling prophesy of an anti-American bloc. Look around at reviews of Obama’s performance at the summit, and outside the fever swamps of the American right the only criticism you hear is that the administration isn’t going far enough toward improving relations with Cuba. And that’s about right. After all, what was achieved by excluding Cuba from the meeting of hemispheric leaders? Citizens of all the countries of Americas should hope that the Obama-Chavez greeting won’t be the new president’s last controversial handshake.

A related angle on this, as per Daniel Drezner, is that Obama’s approach to foreign policy is about setting priorities and not wasting national energy and credibility on third-tier things like a spat with Venezuela.