GOP alienating Latino voters

[FerrelGeek]

The GOP is incredibly xenophobic an example of this is their homophobic rhetoric.

What I find amazing is that the Republicans have attacked Afro-Americans, Women, Latin-Americans, the Poor, the middle class, and the unemployed. What other voting block will that attack next?
They have to be praying that the economy crashes by October 2012.

Yet another steaming pile of liberal ignorance

This is true for any voting block the dems accuse the GOP of attacking. End affirmative action... you are attacking blacks... cutting off unemployment at 99 weeks... you are attacking the unemployed, mentioning illegal immigration is a problem... attacking latinos. asking for an id when you vote... well you are attacking the whole lot of them.

What a wonderful world when the dems kiss ass of all these voting blocs who keep encouraging people to be more dependent on the government teet. Its all fun and games until there is no one left to pay all the bills.

Let's pursue employers of illegals as vigorously as we pursue illegals themselves. Is that so hard to advocate?

Both very good points +1

 

[woolfe9999]

Motives matter because they are what achieve the final results. We went through this once if you recall. We had an amnesty in the past. Were the borders secured? No. So we give amnesty (or whatever). What guarantee do we have the the results will be any different? None at all.

I'm a bit puzzled as to how you can make this argument given the way I framed my position here. Reagan handled the amnesty incorrectly. He granted wide spread amnesty and IIRC he added some personnel to the border but did not condition the one on the success of the other. The proper order here is, first secure the border, then and only then, grant the path to citizenship. It isn't enough even to just say, we'll going to add x amount of personnel, y amount of surveillance equipment, and z amount of fencing. You have to tie it to actual results. Yet, it can still be done in the same piece of legislation. The legislation spells out the order of it, and the amnesty part is conditioned and triggered by not just the implementation, but the success, of the security, as measured by whatever independent data gathering and assessment the parties agree to.

Stepping away from one side or the other and looking at the whole coin this becomes not about anything other than a game of "who blinks first" with neither side trusting the other and sadly that last part makes sense. We aren't going to get a satisfactory resolution to any of this because it is not politically possible as things stand.

Well, first of all, this is an area where an independent like yourself cannot say that "both parties are the same." They most decidedly have different substantive positions on the issue of immigration. The similarity you're alleging is that both are motivated by political considerations. That is certainly true. But I don't think the dems are hamstrung by a base that won't go along with enhanced border security so much as the reps are hamstrung by a base that won't go along with amnesty. While the far left wants an open border, there are enough on the left who would agree to tighter security if amnesty is included that we could have an agreement.

BTW, this is nothing. If UHC ever goes before Congress, immigration will look as if it was handled by anal retentives. Oh yes, it's hypothetically possible that government can handle immigration and other issues, but it is not run by representatives but parties and I think you'll have a hard time finding that is not a general rule.

Yes, the problems you describe in our political system are very real. Yet perhaps discussing those problems is less productive than discussing rational solutions to problems like illegal immigration. In this political culture, we have the libs blaming the conservatives for everything, the conservatives blaming the libs for everything, and the independents blaming both for everything. Somewhere we lost sight of the the real issues, and I'm afraid that our losing sight of the issues is perpetuating the very problems we are seeing. Instead, let's figure out what the best and most rational policy is, and make it clear to the elected officials that this is what we demand and that we don't give a damn about their rhetoric or their motives. We just want them to do x because it's what's best, and of course if they don't do x then they're going to have trouble getting re-elected. If x is some form of compromise, then that is what we must insist they do.

It's a pipe dream of course, what I'm suggesting. Not because the system is inherently bad, or because politicians are inherently bad. But because we have become too cynical and too divided, and hence we have exactly the system and politicians we deserve.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Woolfe, people have been suggesting approaches to various problems, who aren't politicians, who aren't statesmen, which are better than what we've been getting from DC. Now either we're bloody geniuses compared to those in office or we're able to do something they cannot and that is look at problems and solutions before political concerns. Yes I am cynical but not because things cannot be better, but we can't begin to divorce politics from anything.

Remember when I proposed how to approach health care reform? Remember how I heard that legislatures are perfectly qualified to write rules and regs? That all solutions were known and we needn't bother? How other countries do things? Where is "let's figure out what the best and most rational policy" in all that? Instead we have blind faith in willful ignorance because we assume the very people who cannot get together on any major issue will do so for that. Well they haven't they won't and they won't get immigration right either. We will not hold their feet to the fire, we will protect "our own". You and I and many others aren't in charge and the system is set up to make sure that the likes people like you and I and some others won't upset the apple cart of power. Again that's cynical, but show me concrete examples that I'm wrong.

Meh, it's a cloudy day. Maybe I'll be more optimistic another day.

 

[theeedude]

By all means let illegals have free access. That's apparently what it will take to win the latino vote. Oh yeah let them vote too.

We do that for Cubans in Florida.

 

[peonyu]

By all means let illegals have free access. That's apparently what it will take to win the latino vote. Oh yeah let them vote too.

Exactly. If a candidate is not jumping for joy that illegals are pouring in and offering them free medical and welfare then the Latinos wont be happy, and of course - that candidate is labeled as "alienating" Latinos [which is utterly ridiculous].

Of course I am only referring to the American hating Latinos - and yes, those who put their ethnic group before America and its laws are not true Americans. Anti-Illegal immigration is not anti-hispanic afterall...Our borders are there for many reasons, the most important of which is national security. As it is now any schmoe can hop the fence with a bomb...If you think thats ok then you are not looking at this countries best interest.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We do that for Cubans in Florida.

When was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act repealed?

 

[peonyu]

I'm a bit puzzled as to how you can make this argument given the way I framed my position here. Reagan handled the amnesty incorrectly. He granted wide spread amnesty and IIRC he added some personnel to the border but did not condition the one on the success of the other. The proper order here is, first secure the border, then and only then, grant the path to citizenship. It isn't enough even to just say, we'll going to add x amount of personnel, y amount of surveillance equipment, and z amount of fencing. You have to tie it to actual results. Yet, it can still be done in the same piece of legislation. The legislation spells out the order of it, and the amnesty part is conditioned and triggered by not just the implementation, but the success, of the security, as measured by whatever independent data gathering and assessment the parties agree to.

Looking at our Borders today AND how we handle illegals in America today do you really think Amnesty is a good idea ? Reagan may have messed up but the Presidents following him are no better...And Obama is doing Jack shit about illegals.

 

[Remobz]

Exactly. If a candidate is not jumping for joy that illegals are pouring in and offering them free medical and welfare then the Latinos wont be happy, and of course - that candidate is labeled as "alienating" Latinos [which is utterly ridiculous].

Of course I am only referring to the American hating Latinos - and yes, those who put their ethnic group before America and its laws are not true Americans.

Latinos were in the Americas (pre Mexican-American War) ever since Spain landed on its shores and mingled with the local inhabitants already there.

Latinos will be a dominating presence within US politics maybe within the next 20 years or a little longer. They are the fastest growing group within the USA. They are going no where and one cannot ignore their voice. That is a fact.

Just stating the obvious again for those in denial🙂

 

[peonyu]

Latinos were in the Americas (pre Mexican-American War) ever since Spain landed on its shores and mingled with the local inhabitants already there.

Latinos will be a dominating presence within US politics maybe within the next 20 years or a little longer. They are the fastest growing group within the USA. They are going no where and one cannot ignore their voice. That is a fact.

Their voice is to let anyone in this country, thats not rational. But of course thats to be expected...Most hispanics here today are here because of amnesty. Before that Hispanics were a tiny percent of the US population.

 

[peonyu]

From:

depts.washington.edu/uwiser/documents/BayAreaD_2.23.07.ppt

Based on research done by Hispanics on the US population starting from 1960, so no bias.Percents of course are lower the further back you go which is likely why 1960 is the starting point.

1960- 3.6% Hispanic. Growth is 75% from birthrate, 25% from legal/illegal immigration.
1970- 4.8%, growth is 50% from birthrate and 50% legal/illegal immigration.
1980- 6.9%, growth is 70% from legal/illegal immigration.
1990- 9.1%, again most of the growth [70%] is from legal/illegal immigration.
2000- 13.2% Growth is split amongst birthrate and legal/illegal immigration.
2010- 16.4% Growth is majority from birthrate, legal/immigration still high.

Bottom line ? A hugeeeeeeeeeeeee proportion of Hispanics have a close relative who is illegal. Its no mystery why in order to win over the latino vote you must be pro illegal, to not be pro-illegal is to not receive their vote...Since obviously they dont want to see Grandma or Mom deported. does that make it right ? No not at all, and we dont want a President who caters to that mindset either since it is breaking US law AND we already had a amnesty.

 

[xBiffx]

From:

depts.washington.edu/uwiser/documents/BayAreaD_2.23.07.ppt

Based on research done by Hispanics on the US population starting from 1960, so no bias.Percents of course are lower the further back you go which is likely why 1960 is the starting point.

1960- 3.6% Hispanic. Growth is 75% from birthrate, 25% from legal/illegal immigration.
1970- 4.8%, growth is 50% from birthrate and 50% legal/illegal immigration.
1980- 6.9%, growth is 70% from legal/illegal immigration.
1990- 9.1%, again most of the growth [70%] is from legal/illegal immigration.
2000- 13.2% Growth is split amongst birthrate and legal/illegal immigration.
2010- 16.4% Growth is majority from birthrate, legal/immigration still high.

Bottom line ? A hugeeeeeeeeeeeee proportion of Hispanics have a close relative who is illegal. Its no mystery why in order to win over the latino vote you must be pro illegal, to not be pro-illegal is to not receive their vote...Since obviously they dont want to see Grandma or Mom deported.

I'm not willing to go that far on the bolded comments. The numbers do indicate much more than just standard reproduction and some immigration is surely the reason. I also thinks its reasonable to say some of that immigration is illegal but you go too far with your statements.

 

[peonyu]

I'm not willing to go that far on the bolded comments. The numbers do indicate much more than just standard reproduction and some immigration is surely the reason. I also thinks its reasonable to say some of that immigration is illegal but you go too far with your statements.

I dont think im off at all, we have a estimated 12-30 million illegals in this country today, and those numbers are not added to the official hispanic numbers. So even if the number is only 12 million, thats close to 20% of the hispanic population being illegal. And the illegals before Reagan received amnesty already...So if you count those the number is huge.

 

[xBiffx]

I dont think im off at all, we have a estimated 12-30 million illegals in this country today, and those numbers are not added to the official hispanic numbers. So even if the number is only 12 million, thats close to 20% of the hispanic population being illegal. And the illegals before Reagan received amnesty already...So if you count those the number is huge.

First, Reagan didn't receive amnesty, he gave it. Second, that right there is a major reason for the large uptick in the Hispanic population. Those people are no longer considered illegals so it pokes a huge hole in your conclusion. Also, you are yet again going too far by assuming that all illegals are Hispanic. I don't like illegal immigration anymore than the next guy but you are showing a massive amount of ignorance by assigning all illegal immigration to Hispanics. Yes, its probably true that a majority of it is Hispanic from Mexico but your argument is one of the reasons why people laugh like hell at the right when they try and debate immigration. Fucking remove your head from your ass and stop showing so much ignorance, its even beginning to bother me and I'm on your side of this debate.

 

[Remobz]

Their voice is to let anyone in this country, thats not rational. But of course thats to be expected...Most hispanics here today are here because of amnesty. Before that Hispanics were a tiny percent of the US population.

Ok before the Mexican_American war guess how much of the Western United States Spain and then Mexico owned? Guess what language they spoke back then?

Britain did not establish a SOLID colony in the modern day USA until after 1600.

Spain and Spanish speaking people dominated the Americas before 1600 especially.

Of course we know the results of the Mexican-American War and its outcome.

Can you not deny that Hispanics (Spain) dominated this part of the world before the British and French came to the Americas?

So how could they have been a tiny minority if they were here before the British and French came in full force after 1610?

 

[peonyu]

First, Reagan didn't receive amnesty, he gave it. Second, that right there is a major reason for the large uptick in the Hispanic population. Those people are no longer considered illegals so it pokes a huge hole in your conclusion. Also, you are yet again going too far by assuming that all illegals are Hispanic. I don't like illegal immigration anymore than the next guy but you are showing a massive amount of ignorance by assigning all illegal immigration to Hispanics. Yes, its probably true that a majority of it is Hispanic from Mexico but your argument is one of the reasons why people laugh like hell at the right when they try and debate immigration. Fucking remove your head from your ass and stop showing so much ignorance, its even beginning to bother me and I'm on your side of this debate.

The illegals who were here before Reagan, received amnesty from him. Which is very clear if you bothered to think about what you were reading dumbass. Secondly, the hispanic population is 50 million, 12-30 million are illegal today. That is a large percent. THIRD, the illegals who received amnesty from Reagan [read that clearly now], would definately NOT be anti-illegal immigration. AND those who did receive amnesty back then are counted as Legals today.

Hence, YES a huge percent of Hispanics have family members who are or were illegal. Its very clear why they are pro-illegal...I think you are the one who needs to remove your head from your ass.

Also ALL illegal immigration is NOT Hispanic, that much is obvious, and for you to assume that I would not know that is ignorance/stupidity on your part. But the fact is, the majority of it is from South of the Border...Mexico, or further down. 30% is from outside the Americas.

 

[peonyu]

Ok before the Mexican_American war guess how much of the Western United States Spain and then Mexico owned? Guess what language they spoke back then?

Britain did not establish a SOLID colony in the modern day USA until after 1600.

Spain and Spanish speaking people dominated the Americas before 1600 especially.

Of course we know the results of the Mexican-American War and its outcome.

Can you not deny that Hispanics (Spain) dominated this part of the world before the British and French came to the Americas?

So how could they have been a tiny minority if they were here before the British and French came in full force after 1610?

They mostly spoke Native American languages. Mexico did jack-all in the SW for the most part.

 

[Infohawk]

Latinos were in the Americas (pre Mexican-American War) ever since Spain landed on its shores and mingled with the local inhabitants already there.

Mingling? Is that what you call it? There was some mingling but not as much as you'd think. The fact that many Mexicans have Spanish last names is about as relevant as black people having British last names. Sure there was some mingling but "latino" culture is about as racist and perhaps more racist than WASP culture at this point. Most of the Mexican immigrants to this country are of indigenous blood. There are rich white Mexicans. They aren't coming here. They're happy to off-load their impoverished indigenous classes on the US while they maintain a corrupt system that keeps them wealthy and in power in Mexico.

Yes, there's a demographic shift going on. But you seem to be oversimplifying the history and suggesting that Spanish is somehow a more valid language than English for the Americas. They are both colonial languages.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Maybe that's what a true conservative also believes but I don't think the values of today's G.O.P represent what true Conservatives believe. My problem with the G.O.P(the way I see it) is their desire to eliminate all safety nets in Society but what I would like to see is the safety nets we have become more efficient.

Wow again!! We actually agree. I don't want to see the safety nets go away just increased scrutiny on who qualifies/gets help and ensure that wasteful spending is decreased.

 

[Remobz]

Mingling? Is that what you call it? There was some mingling but not as much as you'd think. The fact that many Mexicans have Spanish last names is about as relevant as black people having British last names. Sure there was some mingling but "latino" culture is about as racist and perhaps more racist than WASP culture at this point. Most of the Mexican immigrants to this country are of indigenous blood. There are rich white Mexicans. They aren't coming here. They're happy to off-load their impoverished indigenous classes on the US while they maintain a corrupt system that keeps them wealthy and in power in Mexico.

Yes, there's a demographic shift going on. But you seem to be oversimplifying the history and suggesting that Spanish is somehow a more valid language than English for the Americas. They are both colonial languages.

You know the definition of a Meztizo right? There was more mixing of the races by the 1830s for sure. As to what significant proportion?

Ok let me ask you this then.

Native American languages were spoken all over the modern USA before Spain and Britain came to the New World.

Look at Canada....you see how everything is in English and French? Some parts of Canada people never talk English or RARELY.

So why in the USA there was no type of system like in Canada concerning Native American languages and English?

Because the new comers eventually dominated them with technology (warfare) and sheer mass of numbers and births of Europeans. A lot of other factors as well.

The Mexicans were dominated by technology (warfare) and eventually sheer mass of numbers (birth rate) of European Americans and kicked out of Western modern day USA.

Now, fast forward to modern day time. The Mexicans whether legal or illegal are coming back to their old lands. The demographic shift has begun without warfare this time.

I know they come to the USA for many reasons and especially for better pay and a decent living.

Anyway, you and I know nothing stays the same forever and unless the USA has death camps for Latinos (legal or not) then they will be the dominant culture in the USA within 40? 50 years? less?


For the record, I am against illegals of any color, race or Country. Just wanted to make that clear. But, that is not the point of my discussion here.

 

[xBiffx]

The illegals who were here before Reagan, received amnesty from him. Which is very clear if you bothered to think about what you were reading dumbass. Secondly, the hispanic population is 50 million, 12-30 million are illegal today. That is a large percent. THIRD, the illegals who received amnesty from Reagan [read that clearly now], would definately NOT be anti-illegal immigration. AND those who did receive amnesty back then are counted as Legals today.

Hence, YES a huge percent of Hispanics have family members who are or were illegal. Its very clear why they are pro-illegal...I think you are the one who needs to remove your head from your ass.

Also ALL illegal immigration is NOT Hispanic, that much is obvious, and for you to assume that I would not know that is ignorance/stupidity on your part. But the fact is, the majority of it is from South of the Border...Mexico, or further down. 30% is from outside the Americas.

I apologize for misunderstanding your point on Reagan. Its Friday and I've been staring at a computer screen all week.

As far as the rest. I don't have to assume anything. You said that much quite plainly.

 

[Todd33]

Let's pursue employers of illegals as vigorously as we pursue illegals themselves. Is that so hard to advocate?

That would screw with the profit of those who donate to the GOP.

 

[ShawnD1]

Look at Canada....you see how everything is in English and French? Some parts of Canada people never talk English or RARELY.

So why in the USA there was no type of system like in Canada concerning Native American languages and English?

Because USA has common sense? Having 2 official languages has caused a lot of problems in Canada. It splits the country right down the middle. You're either Canadian or French Canadian. It creates a lot of tension on both sides because having a different language means having a different culture. People in the English parts of Canada often feel like they have more in common with Americans than they do with French Canadians.
Adding officially languages to the US would only divide people more and make the country feel less united.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Que?