The Valle brothers. (Photo courtesy of endourpain.com)

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama gave a nod to undocumented young people, and indicated his administration is making pinpointed immigration fixes because Congress doesn’t have an appetite for comprehensive reform.

Speaking a few days later to a Latino audience on Univision, the Spanish-language TV network, he again touted his administration’s changes to deportation policy.

“Some of the changes that we’re making on immigration, we’re trying to make sure that we’re prioritizing criminals [for deportation],” Obama said.  Under the Obama administration, there have been a record number of deportations.

The president was referring to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy that recently affected Peruvian immigrants Michell and Yasser Valle. The brothers narrowly escaped the chilling prospect of deportation, enabling them to spend Thanksgiving with their family in New Jersey.

ICE revived the use of prosecutorial discretion this fall, citing that with limited resources, the federal government should apply “smart” immigration enforcement and focus on offenders who are serious criminals as opposed to undocumented students with no criminal history. Immigration judges had at times used prosecutorial discretion before, but under this new push 300,000 deportation cases went up for review.

Advocates argued the Valles were clearly eligible for a waiver under the policy: They have no criminal history, they have ties to the community (they entered the U.S. at the age of five and six), and have immediate family members who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. The brothers are also pursuing a college education and meet other conditions that are spelled out in the Morton Memo, the June 17, 2011 letter issued by ICE Director John Morton to ICE field officers, agents and attorneys, laying out the new policy.

Even though the Valles met ICE requirements, Gaby Pacheco, coordinator of the End Our Pain campaign of the United We Dream organization, said it took several months of “advocacy, putting pressure and using media” to nudge ICE officials in New Jersey to reopen the case. Ultimately their petition was granted and the Valles were given a one-year stay from deportation. During this time they were able to return to school, get employment authorization documents and apply for driver’s licenses. They have the option to file for an extension of their deportation hold, but what’s important, Pacheco told Fi2W, is, “They are doing things the legal route.”

Two cities became pilot areas for a test of the new policy from November 2011 to January 2012. ICE officers, agents and lawyers in Denver and Baltimore underwent training on the use of the policy following the roadmap provided in the Morton Memo.

“In Denver, the courts were closed down so they had time to review how to handle the cases,” said Denver lawyer Laura Lichter, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

“They looked at every case, putting them in files — positive, negative, serious criminal history or bad immigration in one pile, positive factors like [immigrants] coming to school here, with ties to community, with family ties to people who are green card holders or members of the armed forces, or have young children in a different pile,” she said. “They were looking at 8,000 cases.”

Reports on Denver’s pilot program show that about 16 percent of the cases were recommended for closure. The results are preliminary, Lichter stressed. In some cases, prosecutorial discretion simply took cases out of court dockets for review but did not resolve or close them.

“They can be put back in the dockets,” according to a lawyer who spoke at an immigration briefing on the policy, voicing his concerns about accountability and transparency. “There is very little public information on what the DHS is doing with these cases.”

The new policy has not escaped backlash, even within ICE. Despite the Morton Memo, not all ICE officers have received training, because an ICE union leader opposes the policy.

It comes down to limited government resources for deportation, advocates say. “Let’s make sure we go after the truly dangerous ones,” Lichter said. “If you have 400,000 seats on the bus, who would you rather get a seat: a bank robber, a drug dealer, a gang member or would you be going after a college student who was brought here when he was 3 years old who doesn’t have a criminal record and whom we want to be part of our community?”

For the Valle brothers, it’s a relief to be out of detention. But they are still stuck in an immigration no-man’s land. Despite being granted a reprieve from immediate deportation, they do not have permanent legal status.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.

Republican contender Mitt Romney. (Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr)

The Florida Primary could be a turning point in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, and Latino voters are in the middle of the fight.

It will be the year’s first primary in a state with a large Latino population. Florida also has a significant bloc of conservative Republican Latino voters. Will they vote for Newt Gingrich, a social conservative who says he’s open to some type of immigration reform? Or will they heed the endorsements of powerful Cuban American leaders in the state and support Mitt Romney?

Host Aswini Anburajan is joined on this podcast by Dan Judy, a Republican strategist and pollster at Ayres, McHenry & Associates, Inc., and Mark Lopez, associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center.

Listen to the podcast

Take a look at the recent Latino Decisions/Univision/ABC Poll about Latino voters in Florida.

The Pew Hispanic Center also has a new poll about Florida Latinos.

Subscribe to the Fi2W podcast using iTunes or Podbean

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation. Fi2W podcasts are supported in part by WNYC Radio and the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.

Sen. Marco Rubio from Florida. (Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

As eyes turn from South Carolina to Florida for the GOP primaries, one Republican Senator who isn’t even running for president is sharing the spotlight with the Republican presidential candidates.

GOP candidate Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is cementing his hardline stance on immigration.

He has touted the endorsement of Kris Kobach, Kansas’ Secretary of State who helped author the draconian immigration laws of Alabama and Arizona. He reiterated his unrelenting position on unauthorized immigrants and DREAMers—young people who stand to benefit from the DREAM Act—at the GOP presidential debate Monday.

“I absolutely believe that those who come here illegally should not be given favoritism or a special route to becoming permanent residents or citizens that’s not given to those people who have stayed in line legally. I just think we have to follow the law, I think that’s the right course,” he said when asked by Fox News political analyst Juan Williams whether he was alienating Latino voters. Romney did say “I love legal immigration.”

“I would veto the DREAM Act, if provisions included in that act say that people who are here illegally, if they go to school here long enough, get a degree here that they can become permanent residents,” Romney added after applause from the audience.

“I think that’s a mistake. I think we have to follow the law and insist those who come here illegally, ultimately return home, apply, and get in line with everyone else.”

He ended by stressing that “to protect our legal immigration system we have got to protect our borders and stop the flood of illegal immigration and I will not do anything that opens up another wave of illegal immigration.”

It won’t help Romney win Hispanic votes. Somos Republicans, the largest Hispanic republican group which says it has 6,000 members, endorsed Newt Gingrich this week, the one candidate who supports a limited path to residency for some undocumented immigrants.

Who is Romney even trying to appeal to? According to the latest Gallup poll, only three percent of Americans say immigration is the most important problem facing the country today, reported Jon Clifton, Gallup Social and Economic Analysis deputy director at an immigration symposium in Washington, D.C. Tuesday.

Clifton said that based on Gallup’s latest findings, lingering unemployment, the federal budget and continuing economic malaise are more worrisome to Americans than the perceived scourge of unauthorized immigration trumpeted by some on the far right.

Its true that almost two thirds of those polled say they are “dissatisfied” about the level of immigration to the U.S. Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of NDN, a think tank and advocacy organization, believes that immigration will be an issue in the upcoming Presidential elections because it is a hot button topic, especially in key southwestern states that will be contested in November. Clearly, Romney is placing his bets that reaching anti-immigration voters in those states is more important than the Hispanic voters who live in them.

Rosenberg, another panelist at Tuesday’s symposium, said that immigration is at a deeper level a “surrogate for growing diversification of society.” It is “about race, culture and how we are changing.”

He believes that with the election of an African American president, “the country has passed on to a new place in race,” but he contends that “we have not digested it yet as a country.”

Mitt Romney, rather than helping us process these seismic social and cultural shifts is calcifying the toxic immigration debate by insisting on an uncompromising position, a stance not taken by previous Republican presidents and candidates.

Ronald Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which legalized the status of millions of unauthorized immigrants. President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain supported comprehensive immigration reform that included border enforcement and a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants.

If Romney’s braggadocio proves to be real, then he will be presenting a very different Republican Party from that of Reagan or Bush. Is pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment the direction the Republican party, and this country, should be going?

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.

(Photo: Mockstar/flickr)

While the Republican presidential candidates have taken hard line positions on illegal immigration, rank and file GOP voters in New Hampshire tend to have a more nuanced position on the issue.  Pilar Marrero, senior political writer for La Opinion, says Republican voters she has met in New Hampshire are worried about illegal immigration, but they don’t necessarily support policies that would separate immigrant families.

In this podcast, recorded on the eve of the 2012 New Hampshire Primary, Marrero and free lance journalist Valeria Fernandez speak with Fi2W Executive Producer John Rudolph about the mood of the voters in the Granite State.  Fernandez talks about her reporting on the state’s small but growing Latino population, and their concerns about the Republican candidates and President Obama’s immigration policies. Listen:

Subscribe to the Fi2W podcast using iTunes or Podbean ¦ Download this episode

Feet in Two Worlds podcasts are supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation. Fi2W podcasts are also supported in part by WNYC Radio and the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.

Newt Gingrich speaking at CPAC 2011. (Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr)

Latinos make up a tiny fraction of the New Hampshire population–only 2.8 percent, according to the Census Bureau, versus 16.8 percent nationwide–but the Republican GOP candidates are fighting for every vote they can muster leading up to Tuesday’s primary.

On Sunday, Newt Gingrich held a rowdy campaign event at a Mexican restaurant in Manchester, where he spoke again about his controversial plan that would, among other things, provide legal residency for a small subset of undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for 25 years and have strong community and family ties. The LA Times reported that a Latino man in the audience told Gingrich he’d have his vote if he promised to enact the plan within 100 days of taking the Oval Office. Gingrich did not answer directly and said the plan would have to be broken into many different bills in order to pass (translation: we’re not talking a comprehensive immigration reform bill).

The first Latino elected official in the state, Rep. Carlos Gonzalez (R), introduced Gingrich. The Washington Post reported that Gingrich’s staff distributed Spanish-language paraphernalia, including a card that listed  “10 reasons why Latinos should support Newt Gingrich for president.”

“I’m here because we really believe that we have an opportunity to pull together people of all backgrounds,” Gingrich said. “We particularly wanted to reach out to the Latino community, but also frankly, to all ethnic communities…It’s very important for us to make a case that we are in favor of many people, from many places, having the opportunity to become Americans—that this is truly a land of opportunity.”

Meanwhile, at the Rochester, New Hampshire, Opera House, Romney told the crowd that his father was born in Mexico–something he rarely mentions in public. Romney’s father, George, who ultimately became governor of Michigan, came to the U.S. when he was five, and Candidate Romney painted his life story as that of an immigrant living out the American Dream.  “We became a nation that attracted the innovators of the world,” Romney said. “It’s in our DNA, it’s who we are.” Univision reported:

But Romney hardly ever mentions his father’s roots in Mexico or the fact that he still has many distant relatives living in the country and it’s not surprising the subject does not come up more often. His family’s history there is controversial. Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, fled the U.S. to Mexico with a group of Mormons in 1885 to avoid anti-polygamy laws in America. And a Washington Post piece published in July detailed how his relatives have more open views on immigration than the former Massachusetts governor.

Every vote counts, as we saw in Iowa, where Romney won by eight little slips of paper. But realistically, the candidates are likely just practicing their talking points for Florida, the first state in the primary season that has a sizable Latino population.

Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce. (Photo: www.JoseMunozPhotos.com)

PHOENIX, AZ—2011 will be recorded as a turning point in the battle between conservative politicians in Arizona who supported laws like  SB 1070 – a law that made it a state crime for a person to be an undocumented immigrant in Arizona – and the pro-immigrant rights groups that stood in opposition.

For close to a decade, Arizona has been the nation’s primary battleground over immigration. The state has passed some of the nation’s most stringent anti-immigrant laws, including SB 1070. That law faced numerous court challenges, and its fate will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, probably in June.

While states including Alabama set into motion even harsher laws targeting the undocumented, creating a climate of fear and panic in immigrant communities, in Arizona, politicians who pushed those policies suffered a brutal backlash.

The Campaign Against State Senator Russell Pearce

The year began with a grassroots, bi-partisan group of citizens and business leaders developing a plan to recall SB 1070’s architect, State Senator Russell Pearce. The movement grew without much media attention initially, but steadily gained momentum.

Buoyed by his success with SB 1070, Pearce decided in 2011 to spearhead an effort to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S. by passing a state law that would force a legal challenge to the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Pearce also wanted to pass four other anti-immigrant bills. The legislation would have required schools to check on the immigration status of students, and hospitals to ask about the immigration status of people they provide services to.

But Pearce’s tough immigration bills failed to pass, even though his hardline immigration reputation led to his election as president of the Arizona Senate. Opposition from business leaders and immigrant advocates, and the votes of 12 Republican senators meant Pearce didn’t have enough support to pass his bills.

Many of Republican senators who had voted for SB 1070 said “enough is enough” when it came to immigration after receiving a letter from 60 CEOs that urged Pearce to stop the bills.

“Arizona’s lawmakers and citizens are right to be concerned about illegal immigration. But we must acknowledge that when Arizona goes it alone on this issue, unintended consequences inevitably occur,” the letter read. “Last year, boycotts were called against our state’s business community, adversely impacting our already-struggling economy and costing us jobs. Arizona-based businesses saw contracts canceled or were turned away from bidding. Sales outside of the state declined.”

Pearce’s Collapse

In a clever campaign that appealed to a broad swath of voters, the anti-Pearce forces, calling themselves Citizens for a Better Arizona (CBA), focused not on Senator Pearce’s role on immigration issues but rather his style of leadership, which they defined as “extreme.” They underscored his involvement in cutting state funding of education and health.

At first, Pearce didn’t seem to take the threat of a recall seriously. But as the months went by and CBA filed over 10,000 valid signatures needed to force a special recall election, he started to get nervous.

In a desperate attempt to divide the Latino vote against Pearce, members of the Tea Party supported a Latina Republican candidate in the  Senate election, Olivia Cortes, but she was ultimately forced out of the race by the threat of lawsuits alleging she was a sham candidate.

In the end, Pearce lost to political newcomer Jerry Lewis, who got 53 percent of the vote in one of the most conservative districts in the state. Like Pearce Lewis is a Republican and a Mormon.  It was a stunning reversal, considering that Pearce had represented his district for over a decade.

CBA’s victory represented the birth of a new form of organizing in Arizona that is bi-partisan and includes a broad group of people at the grassroots level.

The Attack on “America’s Toughest Sherrif”

The pro-immigrant allies were invigorated. Before the applause subsided over Pearce’s defeat, there were renewed calls for Maricopa County Sheriff’s Joe Arpaio’s resignation, and CBA announced a campaign to remove him from office.

With a federal Department of Justice lawsuit looming over Arpaio’s agency (MCSO) for racial profiling against Latinos,  one of the most influential proponents of SB 1070 was under attack.  On the heels of criticism from the DOJ, Arpaio’s jailers lost some of their immigration law enforcement powers this fall, which had allowed them to inquire about the immigration status of people entering county jails and match their fingerprints to those in a federal database.

The revocation of MCSO’s powers to enforce the federal 287g and Secure Communities programs was frosting on the cake for many opponents of the sheriff and the state’s anti-immigrant policies.

Their cries for his removal grew louder just a few weeks ago when the AP reported that Arpaio’s agency failed to properly investigate hundreds of sex crimes. Many of the victims had Latino surnames.

The final blow for Arpaio this year was the report from a three-year DOJ probe which described his agency’s abuses towards Latinos as the most “egregious” in the nation.

Former County Attorney General, Andrew Thomas Also on Shaky Ground   

Arpaio and Pearce are not the only politicians who felt the heat this year. Former County Attorney General, Andrew Thomas, known for his unique interpretation of state immigration laws, faces the possibility of loosing his attorney’s license due to an investigation by the Arizona State Bar.

Thomas assumed office after a campaign in which he promised to end illegal immigration. He immediately teamed up with Sheriff Arpaio to use a set of state laws against undocumented immigrants that would result in prosecutions and felonies to keep people from migrating legally to the U.S. in the future. He also used a state law created to fight human smuggling to prosecute immigrants who pay for the services of border-crossing coyotes.  A state civil-employer sanctions law was used by Thomas to bring charges of ID theft against undocumented workers who use false papers to obtain employment.

Now, Thomas, who is one of Arpaio’s strongest allies, is under scrutiny for possible ethics violations that involve using his powers to retaliate against political enemies by initiating investigations without probable cause. The sheriff is also implicated in this issue and is under investigation by a federal grand jury.

Looking forward to 2012

With the architect of SB 1070 out of office and two major anti-immigration crusaders on shaky ground, the politics of immigrations appear to be shifting in Arizona.

CBA now has Arpaio in its crosshairs. Members of the PUENTE movement, a human rights group, are planning to keep protesting against Sheriff Arpaio and raise the bar by turning the heat on those who support him.  Others are planning to focus on Latino voter registration to keep up the momentum after Pearce’s recall.

Yet it’s unclear how much traction pro-immigrant forces will have in 2012, a presidential election year.  Some observers say it’s unlikely that the Obama administration will take action on the criminal investigation of Arpaio.

GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry has dismissed the DOJ’s investigation into Arpaio’s office as politically motivated. And Republican candidates continue to chastise the Obama administration for being weak on illegal immigration.

Probably the most important variable in the immigration debate next year will be the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the legality of SB 1070. Arizonans on all sides are anxiously awaiting the court’s ruling. They want an authoritative answer to the question of how individual states and the nation at large should handle the presence of millions of undocumented immigrants.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.  

A press conference in favor of the DREAM Act in California. (Photo: Antonio Villaraigosa/flickr)

2011 may be best remembered for a new type of political activism.  Movements including the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street were built on a combination of street protests and social media.  The year also saw an outpouring of activism and support for undocumented immigrant youth, especially those who would benefit from the DREAM Act—a proposed federal law that would create a path to legal status for undocumented young people.

Here’s what happened in 2011:

DREAMers (undocumented youth) and their allies responded to the narrow failure of the DREAM Act in Congress at the end of 2010 by launching demonstrations, organizing nationwide groups using social media, getting arrested in civil disobedience actions, lobbying Congress and fighting for state-level DREAM legislation. States can’t offer citizenship, so state efforts are mainly aimed at easing hardships for undocumented college students.  With Congress at an impasse over immigration reform, the movement decided to focus on individual states.

On March 10th, undocumented immigrant advocacy organizations launched National Coming Out of the Shadows day. In the months following this event hundreds of youth across the country revealed themselves as undocumented and participated in demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience in what many called a human rights campaign. Some undocumented youth were arrested while protesting—including six in Chicago, ten in North Carolina, five in Indiana, seven in Atlanta, and four in Arizona.  In all of these cases the students were charged with civil disobedience for either blocking traffic or staging a sit-in at a government office.

With an uncanny resemblance to last year’s “It Gets Better” gay rights campaign, many DREAMers came out publicly as undocumented in online videos, coining the phrase “undocumented and unafraid.”

The most high-profile revelation came from Jose Antonio Vargas, a former Washington Post and Huffington Post journalist who revealed his undocumented status in a New York Times Magazine article.  Other DREAMers revealed their immigration status at public rallies or by posting videos online. Several DREAMers shared their stories with Feet in Two Worlds on our YouTube channel and at a forum at The New School in New York.

Illinois and California passed state-level DREAM Acts that allow undocumented youth to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and obtain public and private scholarships, and New York Senator Bill Perkins introduced the New York DREAM Act, with help from the New York State Youth Leadership Council (NYSYLC).

Despite these efforts, and the Obama administration’s declaration that it would exercise “prosecutorial discretion” and focus on deporting high level criminals, several DREAMers narrowly evaded deportation this year.  Nadia Habib, a 19-year-old college student originally from Bangladesh, and her mother Nazmin were almost deported in September. They were permitted to stay, but their case is still under review. Matias Ramos, an Argentine immigrant and UCLA graduate, was also recently granted a temporary stay moments before being deported.

While some states passed DREAM legislation, others sharpened their focus against undocumented immigrant.  In June, Alabama passed HB58— the nation’s toughest law against undocumented immigrants and those who help them. On the federal level  396,906 individuals were deported in 2011.  Secure Communities, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immigrant identification program, is now active in 44 states.

Young undocumented immigrants show no signs of slowing down their activism in 2012. Their need for the DREAM Act is stronger than ever, but in a presidential election year where immigration is an issue on which no candidate wants to appear “soft”, the DREAM Act battle will likely continue to be waged in individual states.

Von Diaz is a Feet in Two Worlds journalist.  She has also worked as a consultant to Define American, the organization created by Jose Antonio Vargas.

A paycheck for zero dollars. (Photo: Jima/flickr)

Stalled in Congress is a bill which extends the payroll tax cut for two months, thanks to the intransigence of a handful of House GOP freshmen.  If the measure is not passed by the end of the year, 160 million of us will see our paychecks cut by an average of $40. Those among us who access Medicare and unemployment benefits will also suffer greatly.

Among the millions who will have less money to survive on are Latinos and other immigrants who are here legally or are naturalized citizens.  Many will be voting come November and rest assured, they will have immigration and bread and butter issues on their minds.

Latinos are the poorest according to the Census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure. Over six million Latino children, more than any other group, are living in poverty.  The net worth of Latino families shrank the most during the Great Recession. The payroll tax cut, which may seem paltry to wealthy lawmakers, makes a huge difference to struggling families.

Rational conservatives are lambasting their mulish comrades. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board warns that if this impasse is not breached, Republicans might as well gird themselves for a second Obama term. Even some GOP senators who fear losing their seats next November have spoken out against their counterparts in the lower chamber.

If they’d like a chance of winning any Latino votes in 2012, House Republicans should heed these warnings.

More than 6.6 million Latinos – about seven percent of all voters – voted in last year’s midterm elections. Many more are expected to turn out for next year’s presidential and general elections. Who do you think they will vote for?

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.  Feet in Two Worlds podcasts are supported in part by WNYC, New York Public Radio.

Immigrants are a growing force in New York politics. (Photo: Mockstar/flickr)

In this Feet in Two Worlds podcast, La Opinión senior political writer and columnist Pilar Marrero breaks down a new poll released by impreMedia and Latino Decisions analyzing how religion and faith are likely to impact voting decisions for Latino voters. We also hear from Matt Barreto of Latino Decisions. Listen:

Subscribe to the Fi2W podcast using iTunes or Podbean ¦ Download this episode

Moral issues rank very low in Latino voters’ minds, while issues like the economy, jobs, taxes and minimum wage are far more important, a recent poll shows.

The finding contradicts Ronald Reagan’s famous statement that “Hispanics are Republicans. They just don’t know it yet.”

Many Republicans insist that Latinos are “naturals” to join the party because of their conservative philosophy, family values, religion and their entrepreneurial spirit.

But the latest poll by impreMedia and Latino Decisions show the majority (53 percent) of these citizens said their own religion does not have much influence on which candidate they choose, while 40 percent said it does.

Only 23 percent said their own religion has a “big impact,” on their support for candidates, while 19 percent said the candidate’s religion has a big impact. The only exception is among Latinos who are registered Republcans, with 47 percent saying their own religion does have a big impact on their election choices.

For additional numbers and analysis of the poll numbers listen to the podcast.

Feet in Two Worlds podcasts are supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation. Fi2W podcasts are also supported in part by WNYC Radio and the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.