GOP's "Latin@ Strategy" Fails
Published June 23, 2009 @ 10:00AM PT
Greg Sargent pointed out yesterday that new poll data indicate the Sotomayor nomination fight is bruising the Republicans among Latin@ voters. But it's not just the Sotomayor debate--the other key issue at work here is immigration reform. Democrats should remember that it's not so much that Latin@ voters love the Democratic party, but that they have been rejected by the GOP.
The generic numbers for Republicans among Latin@s (8% favorable, 86% unfavorable) are starker than the numbers for Democrats (59% favorable, 28% unfavorable).
Josh Marshall picked up the meme:
The only problem is that the modern Republican party's panic switch, or at least one of them, is rancid jingoism and more or less open anti-Hispanic (though often specifically targeted at Mexicans) prejudice. Or, to put it more bluntly, as with African-Americans, it's tough to be the party of the blacks and the racists at the same time. (Not that the Dems didn't try it for a few decades in the middle of the 20th century -- but it didn't end up panning out.)
. . .
In other words, it's not a mistake or incompetence or any lack of planning that has Republicans in such a bad position with Hispanics, America's fastest growing ethnic group. It's just that people who are hostile to Hispanic immigration and just Hispanics in general are one of the GOP's key constituencies. That puts some real obstacles in the way of becoming the party of Hispanics.
True, but ... there is a real risk here for Democrats as well. Supposedly valued constituencies won't be snowed by empty rhetoric, and they won't wait patiently until Barack Obama and Harry Reid manage to fit them into the legislative master plan sometime in 2011. Without concrete evidence of progress very soon, the administration will no longer be able to assume it has the support of the pro-migrant community.
Update: From the grave, Richard Nixon reminds us why black support for the GOP is where it is today (3% favorable, 94% unfavorable):
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding: “Or a rape.”
I can't politely express how I feel about this, so I'll just leave it at that.
Also, bonus anti-semitism.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Author
-
David is an attorney in Philadelphia, PA, where he helps immigrants to the U.S. navigate the complex immigration legal system. Views he expresses at change.org are his alone and don't represent the views or opinions of his employer, Nationalities Service Center. The information contained on this site is intended for educational and advocacy purposes only.
What on earth have the republicans done that is anti Spanish or anti Sotomayer?
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/23/2009 @ 12:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Tom Tancredo
Bill O'Reilly
Duncan Hunter
Brian Bilbray
Jeff Sessions
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
The public face of the GOP is a bunch of old white men tarring all immigrants with the crimes of a few, clamoring for a border wall and troops at the border, and calling for the deportation of 12 million people regardless of family ties to citizens. That rhetoric has consequences.
8% favorable, 86% unfavorable
I don't claim to speak for Latin@ voters--those numbers speak for themselves.
Like Marshall said, you can't pander to nativists and build Latin@ support. Since the nativists have more clout than Latin@s in the GOP, the GOP made its choice and now will face the consequences.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 06/23/2009 @ 05:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
tarring all immigrants with the crimes of a few
There are so many ways to adress this statement...
Forde and the Minutemen come to mind.
Keep in mind also there are numerous Democrats for the deportation of 12 M people. Even Obama has changed his wording to be more exact as to what he is wanting CIR to cover. What do you suppose it means?
On Friday, the president repeated he was “committed” to passing a reform bill, but seemed to take half a step back when he changed his wording about undocumented immigrants from the oft-repeated campaign promise of “a path to citizenship” to the need to “clarify the status of millions who are here illegally.”
Posted by Liquids Reign on 06/23/2009 @ 06:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(Keep in mind also there are numerous Democrats for the deportation of 12 M people. Even Obama has changed his wording to be more exact as to what he is wanting CIR to cover. What do you suppose it means?)
Keep in mind that if Immigration Reform is delayed it becomes a wedge issue to mop the floor and make greater gains in the senate for democrats in 2011. The politicians are slick. Do you actually think they are dancing around the anti's...actually they are dancing around the pro's.
They know they need to push healthcare reform first. Obama is so populiar. If CIR becomes a wedge issue in 2011 the democrats pick up numbers in voters registration and then reform passes with ease (and that's a liberal bill too!) then Obama wins his next turn with a voters turnout that is the kiss of death to the Republican party.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/23/2009 @ 08:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I see you still live in your world of make believe. It won't become a wedge issue the next time around, Dems won't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. They will be looked at as breaking their promise, its already in the blogs on your side, even the LGBT is turning on Dems and Obama already. Obama's popularity just decreased 5% over the past couple of weeks, its all down hill from here as unemployment numbers continue to rise and jobs are continously lost, more business take overs, etc.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 06/23/2009 @ 08:49PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You obviously do not know what you are talking about when it comes to politics. If Dems do not pass reform they will be breaking there promise. Again, 63% of Americans are for immigration reform (now don't forget to take the 30% of wingnuts out and what do you have now.) You have around 7% there. I will put that 7% in the Democratic party and I can assure you that with Healthcare passed and a economy that turns the other way (and we all know its hit rock bottom)..that 7% isn't going to care about immigration reform if when Obama pulls them out of the other issues they are concerned about. You talk alot of nonsense Micro and I recognized it when I manipulated you off Immigration Reform into a Retail debate.
Wow! Obamas popularity just decreased 5%...Big deal! that is really insignificant amount.
It's all down hill? Well, Micro since Obama has only been in office for 5 months now you can kind of figure out how everything went down hill. I have noticed sales have been going up and people are starting to have significant increases across the board. (I myself was 15% up in sales last month) and this month I'm trending up again. I am not saying that this is a trend everywhere but Jan, Feb, March, and April where dead.
Right now we are flexing up and down at the bottom of the pit. I have up days and down days and everyone knows recovery will take time but they also feel confident about our president and whether you like him or not has nothing to do with political reality...so I suggest you pipe down with your rhetoric.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/23/2009 @ 09:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(Even the Democrat led Congress is polling less with each passing week. All the while, Republian polling numbers are increasing.)
I wouldn't hold your breath Micro...that isn't going to last for long.
Didn't you once post that you were a Democrat on your profile?? lol
Who exactly are you anyway? because it seems to me that you are a serious right winger.
(Or What??)
If you don't pipedown we will have to pick up some masking tape also.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/24/2009 @ 04:21PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm a Conservative Democrat, a Blue Dog Democrat,a Clissical Liberal, if you will.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 06/24/2009 @ 04:34PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
A "Strom Thurmond" Democrat, if you will.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 06/24/2009 @ 06:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Charlie, those would be my questions also. If I remember correctly, there were many Republican politicians who pandered to Spanish speakers in their language. Both parties do that.
The objection to Sotomayer was based on her own words and actions, not because of her ethnicity. So are we to understand that conservative Republicans that are opposed to another amnesty and want secure borders are anti-hispanic? Is that what hispanics actually think or is it a way of demonizing to get what they want? We need to all be puttiing the national interests of this country first rather than our own special group interests. What a division we have going along ethnic and racial lines and over foreigners this time around. Here we are 50 years beyond the civil rights era. I thought things had changed, I guess not.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 06/23/2009 @ 03:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I had discussed the political reality of a citizenship plan with family members and we did come up with many analogy's but the conclusion we agreed upon was that in 2011 not only would the bill pass but it would destroy the republican party because it would be used as a wedge issue that would expose the Republicans to all the anti-rhetoric when it comes to Hispanics.
If Republicans tried to push Immigration Reform to go forward and show kindness to the undocumented they might suffer less damage with their relationship with Hispanics and possibility to recruit more Republican voters in which they desperately need. There is a Evangelical Hispanic population and a Pentecostal Hispanic population out there; if they were to support these on reform they might be able to recruit Hispanics here because of the pro-life issue but so far these people are looking to Obama as the only HOPE they have.
We would all like to see Obama make a move on Immigration Reform but the Dems might just be holding back because they know they need to get the Hispanics out in great numbers when they want to gain those senate seats. 2011 is a long time to wait without executive action to protect immigrants and their Civil Rights. It is a shame that all the broken family's, refugees, asylum seekers and dream children have to face hardships because our politicians have to play the game but it is a reality. Also, we need to abolish the insaine inhumane detention system that profits from jailing people (Including little children and battered woman) just to make profits off American's taxdollars.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/23/2009 @ 04:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The problem is that many of the speakers on the Republican side use propaganda to make Hispanics in general and Mexicans in particular look bad. Whether the Bill O'Reillys and Tom Tancredos in that party know it or not, their panic-fueled vitriol fuels the current rise of racism against Latinos. As a Hispanic, what am I to think whenever I hear politicians talk about immigrants and how they bring crime and poverty, etc. into the country?
"The public face of the GOP is a bunch of old white men tarring all immigrants with the crimes of a few, clamoring for a border wall and troops at the border, and calling for the deportation of 12 million people regardless of family ties to citizens. That rhetoric has consequences." We notice this, and that's why even if 90% of Republicans mean well and speak well of Latino Americans, the 10% that don't ruin it for the entire party.
Hispanic-Americans will not vote for a party that appears to be out to get them. They will not vote for whoever seems to speak out against them. Considering that we're the second largest ethnic group and the fastest growing one, Republicans better clarify their message and try not to look like they are going out of their way to target Latinos. Or it might be a long time before the Republicans ever return to power.
Posted by Robert Bonfante on 06/26/2009 @ 09:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
So what do you say to the Democrats that state the following:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/schumer-immigration-illegal-2476034-people-bill?loc=interstitialskip
"When we use phrases like 'undocumented workers,' we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose,'' Schumer said.
He continued: "People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the United States legally.''
Posted by Liquids Reign on 06/28/2009 @ 08:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Why is it necessary to mention the race of these men? What difference does is make what race they are? They don't tar "immigrants" but they do speak out against those in our country illegally.
Sounds like there is an objection to border security via the fence and troops on the border. Why is that?
Actually they aren't advocating rounding up millions of them and deporting them but they do know what steps need to be taken to make them leave voluntarily.
All Americans of every ethnicity's views count in the country, not just one. We have a responbility as Americans to do what is best for our nation as a whole rather than just what is good for our own group. Although it saddens me to see these group divisions anyway.
A nativist protects and sticks up for their own country's welfare. Is this a bad thing? So the GOP should pander to non-nativists instead?
Sounds like blackmail to me "you do want we want by sacrificing your principles and morals for our group or you are history".
Posted by Mark Lindley on 06/23/2009 @ 06:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
dood ... 8%. 3%. You're kind of missing the point. Repeating GOP talking points ad nauseam is not going to turn those numbers around.
Also I tend to agree with you on the equivalence of nativism and patriotism, making us both outliers in the U.S., but I don't think it's a good thing. http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/nationalism_patriotism_and_nativism
Posted by Dave Bennion on 06/24/2009 @ 06:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(A nativist protects and sticks up for their own country's welfare. Is this a bad thing?)
It is a bad thing when the vast majority of the country does not agree with you. The vast majority(63%) is the country and when you continue to oppose them because they know that reform is desperately needed to protect the civil rights of immigrants (and that includes US children and spouses of immigrants) you are not sticking up for the welfare of the country. Also, the immigrants are part of the country and that includes the undocumented. They are a stable part of our economy and you can not remove them at this point. You only feed into an inhumane detention system that has private sectors that profit off our tax system. When law enforcement turns into private industry it becomes dangerous to all of us and that includes US citizens. We have the best political system in the world but unfortunately when the citizens of this country fall asleep and allow a government to do whatever it wants without checking it from local municipality's all the way up to Washington we lose balance and eventually we all suffer.
You have to do more then elect a President. You have to do what we are doing. Expose issue's and not let politicians delay us in Washington for wedge issues. Many of us are guilty for sleeping when it comes to our government...and that includes myself. When Kerry ran for President I should have been out there campaigning...When Gore won the popular vote I should have been out there protesting...when Clinton signed in the Draconian immigration laws with congress I should have been advocateing back then..but I was not aware...I was busy partying and caught up in a world of all the small stuff that didn't matter like many of my other friends do and unfortunately I did not pay attention to what was happening in my country and I do blame myself for not checking the system.
You do not want the race of these men brought up because it exposes how dark skinned rhetoric is used to manipulate voters and you are in personal denial about it. The tide has turned in the US melting pot and "people with your point of view are becoming a minority". You are feeding the wedge issue and the longer CIR is delayed the more liberal the bill will be when it does pass.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/23/2009 @ 09:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Wanting a secure border has nothing to do with immigration or any anti spanish sentiments. Plenty of latin immigrants want a secure border. They don't come here to feel unsafe. These people come here for a better life for their families, and They too want to live in a secure country. The people being kidnapped in the Southwest are overwhelmingly of Mexican descent. Do You think They don't deserve to feel secure in their homes?
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/24/2009 @ 05:25AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It is never bad to be a nativist for your country and most Americans are nativist about the U.S. All it means is that they put the best interests of this country first and want to protect it from any negative outside influence. It is only a minority group of Americans who put their special interests ahead of nativism for their country. Nativism equates to patriotism no matter how some try to spin it as a bad thing.
The non-nativists are going to be in for a big shock when their scewered polls turn out to be false.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 06/24/2009 @ 06:12AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The problem with your assumption is that all outside influence is inherently negative. That's where the Republicans fail.
Besides, if you really want to go truly nativist, then ideally everybody except the Native Americans should leave this country, as they were here first. I'm sorry, but Nativism and Patriotism are two seperate entities altogether... because someone who just emigrated to this country could be very patriotic, while someone who's family tree goes back generations after generations on this soil could be anything but.
Posted by Robert Bonfante on 06/26/2009 @ 10:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mr. Lindley, were you asking why it's necessary to discuss the race of the GOP members or nativists? Let me answer your question with a question- why is the discussion of race avoided when focused upon dominant groups (Anglos, whites, European-Americans) which have historically discriminated against and ignored the needs of so-called "ethnic" minority groups (Blacks, Asians, Hispanics) over which they govern? You say that the backlash against Sotomayor (not spelled Sotomayer) was based upon her own word and actions. Then why was race, ethnic background, and her gender discussed simultaneously by the GOP when recapping a lecture she delivered on CULTURAL DIVERSITY in 2001? We don't hear the clamor of the GOP and nativists with the appointment of white middle aged males; however, when a non-white female enters the playing field everything but her credentials are reviewed with such dynamic clarity.
As a European-American female military member, I agree with you in prioritizing national interests for the greater good. Although, I wish the comments of nativists and the GOP would demonstrate their ability to negotiate both professional and personal realities of the diverse groups constituting the United States of America.
Posted by T K on 06/24/2009 @ 07:35AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have barely heard any discussion of Sotomayer by republican politicians at all. The only discussion at all was Her involvement in a rascist organisation and a rascist comment by Her, not by republicans, but by commentators like Hannity and Limbaugh. The only thing I have heard from Rep. politicians themselves is that she is very qualified and will probably get the nomination.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/24/2009 @ 08:42AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(It is never bad to be a nativist for your country and most Americans are nativist about the U.S. All it means is that they put the best interests of this country first and want to protect it from any negative outside influence.)
American's are kind of wondering why the nativist's aren't protecting US citizens on the inside from having there husbands and wives removed and thrown into an inhumane detention system in our country. We are wondering why you have gone against family values and advocate splitting American family's apart.
(The non-nativists are going to be in for a big shock when their scewered polls turn out to be false.)
Considering that there are only a few of you left and shrinking rather quickly...you might wake up and smell the coffee. "You are dreaming!" when you make this statement.
*Again Pew poll (an accurate poll) shows that 63% of Americans are in favor of Immigration Reform and that includes a path to citizenship for all. Like I said you could take a few points off the poll but it really looks like your side is losing.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/24/2009 @ 10:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mary, You are confusing issues. Few care if the people here stay. Few care if more come. Few care if They become citizens. The only people saying that, are liars trying to make a party look rascist. The primary issue at hand is border security for all. As I have said the people suffering most from a porous border are immigrants themselves through violence that is inflicted more on Them by far than any others.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/24/2009 @ 04:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(The primary issue at hand is border security for all. As I have said the people suffering most from a porous border are immigrants themselves through violence that is inflicted more on Them by far than any others.)
Charlie, I do agree with that. My Dad was just saying that they have to secure the border but I told him "don't hold your breath dad."
But I also think they ought to just open the legal immigration system and not have the paperwork thing so confusing.
I think alot of people care about the laws because there are more kids and family's that have ties to immigrants then you think. I myself have lots of friends that have issue's because of the broken immigration system and they are all US citizens. The problem is more main stream then you think...its just the media doesn't focus in on it so much.
Remember people live in fear and they have been treated like an underclass of the underground "Hush, Hush" society. The system makes people feel badly about themselves.
People use the excuse "what about the ones that want to come" as a way to suppress the ones that are already here. Alot of the suffering is taking place inside our country. People who are being accused of crimes just because there skin is darker, people who can't continue there education because they came here when they were three, children that were born here that have parents that commute on bicycles and take taxi's, people who have to drive around with false identity's.
You can not tell me that people do not care about the undocument because there are many people here posting that care and they are US citizens.
I do not think that Republicans look Racist to me. One of my very best friends is a Right winged Republican who is pro-life, Fiscally conservative and she is pro-immigration. She agrees with me %100 on my Immigration views and I told her if I lived out in Arizona I would be campaigning for John Mccain.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/24/2009 @ 05:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Also Charlie my friend who has voted Republican all her life is vulnerable to sway...(and she is right winged).
If the Republican party was to proove to her that they were inhumane when it comes to family values she would shift her vote. I did get her to go to a Hillary Clinton rally but she wouldn't vote for Obama when I supported him she went for Mccain. If Republicans harshly opposed Immigration I could get her to sway.
She is 1/2 Puerto Rican and 1/2 PA. Dutch
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/24/2009 @ 05:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
These "families" have split themselves apart by not following our laws. Put the blame where the blame belongs. Being nativist for one's country does not include supporting law breakers whether they be fellow citizens or foreginers.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 06/24/2009 @ 08:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The US citizens did not break the laws. They met someone in there country because you nativist's obviously couldn't secure the borders when the huge spill happened years back at the border.
Also, what kind of law keeps a US citizen from not being able to adjust the status of a spouse. And what kind of insaine law gives the spouse or parent of a US citizen a 10 year bar for breaking the law that separates a family.
*Most US citizens do not even realize the ten year bar exist's. When you educate them on the broken immigration system you have to take them through it around 5 or 6 times to make them get it. It is so messed up that one can not believe the US could come up with such a stupid system...like the current US immigration system.
*Our current immigration system is unreasonable
*Our current immigration has a ten year bar that separates family's for ten years or more because someone fell out of status into "an undocumented status."
*Our current immigration detain's children and their mom's that seek asylum in a private prision detention system the utilize's US contracts draining our tax system. (It cost $200 dollars a day to detain cute little children dressed in prison clothes.)
*Woman who become pregnant from being raped coming through the border who are detained are not given a CHOICE of what to do with there pregnancy's. (These woman are forced to carry their baby's up to full term even when they do not want the baby.) These woman are given no council, denied religious services and are either dropped off in front of Catholic Charities after having the baby or dropped off in the middle off their country knowing that the family will disown her because of the rape situation.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/24/2009 @ 08:50PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
These families include me, so I'll answer. I did not break the law. I married the guy I love & want to spent my life with, and I did it with the understanding that it might mean my living outside the US for a minimum of 10 years. There is no legal requirement as to immigration status when one marries. Our marriage is entirely legal, registered as such in two countries.
In my case the hardship would not be so great. We're both fluently bilingual, I'm very attached to my in-laws, and know I could find work in my husband's country. They'd treat me considerably better than my government does him.
US "natives" are not monolithic. My mom's mother was nearly disinherited for marrying Irish, my father's father had to deal w/ family issues when he married a Southerner ... This discussion has been going on forever, and it's been stupid and counterproductive for just as long. We need to get over it.
There have been times, in my country and in my lifetime, when my marriage would have been illegal. Not because of my husband's citizenship, but because we're perceived as being of different races. Thank God we're past that one. We're all human, and some of our laws are dumb and need changing. Let's get on with it.
Posted by Mary Hopkins on 06/26/2009 @ 08:50AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I honestly think that even in these times, this country benefits economically, demographically, and genetically from plentiful immigration. We do need however, tight borders. The Republican party has done nothing to dissuade immigration. Their big mistake has been lack of public relations. They need to get the word out. Easily, the majority of people immigrating here are hard workers and entrepeneurs Who gain more from the republican agenda than the Democrat one of higher taxes and government control. They just need get that word out. The problem of course, is working againdt a lieing, liberal press.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/25/2009 @ 04:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Then the Republican party needs to disassociate with those who use negative propaganda to try to make points. Because all we see are the Hannitys and the Limbaughs. And look at the result, we have people like Brian who are easily influence by this percieved hostility to immigrants, particularly Hispanic immigrants.
By the way, Brian... I reported you. Anyone who can't have a grown-up, serious conversation don't belong on this blog!
Posted by Robert Bonfante on 06/26/2009 @ 10:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As spineless and backpeddling as the Democratic Party is, they are still a bit less horrifying than the GOP. This pattern is beginning to repeat itself. The Dems need to stand up to corporate America and all the forces of hate, rather than find excuses to act in the interests of their own opposition. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
Posted by Rev Bookburn on 06/26/2009 @ 03:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Robert, the Republican party cannot stop anyone from joining their party anymore than the Democrats can. I think you have the situation in reverse. It isn't the Republicans that are associating themselves with certain people per se it is the other way around.
There is no hostility displayed towards "immigrants" by the Republican party. They just oppose those coming here illegally and have some valid points why immigration must be done legally. It is a myth that they consider those who don't come legally as all hardened criminals. Come on, illegal immigration is a negative for any countrty in the sense that they aren't respecting the laws by doing so. Legal immigration is not a negative.
As far as any hostility towards Hispanic immigrants not in our country legally well they do make up the majority of them. That fact is being used by the pro-advocate side to pull the race card and that simply isn't fair. I don't know of any Republican or any other citizen who only wants Hispanics who arre in our country illegally, removed.
I think some honesty on this issue is in order rather than always looking for ulterior motives from the anti-illegal immigration side.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 06/27/2009 @ 07:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(There is no hostility displayed towards "immigrants" by the Republican party. They just oppose those coming here illegally and have some valid points why immigration must be done legally. It is a myth that they consider those who don't come legally as all hardened criminals.)
Mark, Who are you talking about? What part of the Republican party are you talking about? The entire Republican party is not on with your ideas on Immigration. They elected John Mccain in the Primary. If they were so into this issue...like you are there is no way John Mccain would have won in the primary.
You have to start talking about the real FACTS rather than making comments on your emotional oppinions.
If is obvious that you oppose Immigration Reform based on negative feelings based on skin.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/27/2009 @ 05:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If the Republicans want to change the realities of the polls (86% unfavorable is pretty bad), then first, they need to police themselves. As I mentioned before, if 9 out of 10 Republicans don't have a racist bone in their bodies but 1 out of 10 does, and that 1 is a particularly vocal one... guess what! People will notice that 1, especially if no one else from the Republicans are holding #1 accountable.
The challenge is this: the topic of immigration and immigration reform must reach a higher plane than where it is now. There can be no more references to people being criminal, lazy or any other negative stereotype. No one should pander to hate mongers. No one should play the race card. If it is fear that drives this discussion (fear of terrorists threats or drug dealers etc), it can not show. There has to be a show of understanding-- splitting up families just for breaking a law to look for a better life is harsh and borderline barbaric. This may help smooth over whatever anxieties Latinos may have with the Republican party. It this doesn't happen, don't be surprised when that 86% figure refuses to budge.
Posted by Robert Bonfante on 06/27/2009 @ 11:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Robert, as I said there is no way that the Republican party can police anyone's views in their party anymore than the Democrats can. Each party has their basic principles and individuals within their party that take things to the extreme. There is no controlling that. You are sadly mistaken if you don't think there are racists and ethnocentrics and extremists in the Democratic party also.
As for references to criminals or laziness in the immigration issue, most Americans opposed to illegal immigration are not calling most of those in our country illegally hardened criminals. Have you not heard from the other side though that supposedly Americans are too lazy to do certain jobs and therefore we need an illegal workforce in this country? Why is it ok for the pro-advocate side to label such Americans in this manner along with calling them racists and making unfair remarks about opposing certain skin colors? That is an outright lie and those insults are continually flung at me in here and for no reason whatsover. I have no problem with race, skin color or diversity at all! Isn't that hate mongering from the pro side? Glad to hear you say that hate mongering and race card pulling are unacceptable but it applies to both sides.
Not securing our borders does pose a terrorist threat and drug cartel threat. Americans already know that without being told by someone else to supposedly instill fear. Me thinks the pro side wants to play that fact down and stifle freedom of speech on it to keep the border wide open so that those looking for work can continually come here without proper documents to do so.
I don't think either party should sacrifice their principles for votes. Both parties should at least have the basic principle to do what is right for this country first and foremost. I have already addressed the "breaking up of families" jargon and there is no point in repeating myself on that again. We will just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 06/28/2009 @ 07:39AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Robert, This guy Mark continues to post the same (Non Factually) talking points based on his own personal feelings.
Americans do want border security and our current administration is prepared to address that problem...although I do think that the flow comming across the Border is not there anymore and that is because there are not jobs to supply additional workforce.
When Mark talks about Republican principles...I'm confused about where he is comming from since most Republicans are not with him on his rhetoric. I am an active Democrat but I have many Republican friends that I hang out with and I do not want them labeled with that 1% (hate group of...retrictionists)...they are kind people and they have great family values and do not wish to see familys torn apart over a broken Immigration system.
When you talk about Republicans and Immigration the vast majority of them are on the pro-side and that is because they do not want to compromise there family values "principals" and rally up with the hate mongers.
I do not like to pull out the race card and in my own partys primary between "a woman and a black man" I did not once pull out the race card even though the press did numerous times.
I can't help but pull the race card out now because a "1% of hate mongers" is an indication to me that the race card happens to be valid when you see hate crimes and murders of immigrants nationwide.
*Also Robert what I found shocking was that a Retrictionist that posts here has information for a fundraiser set up on his blog to raise money to defend (Brandon) one of the kids that murdered Luis Ramirez in cold blood in P.A.
It is unfortunate that I had to pull the race card out but I believe now that the "1% hate group is racially motivated" and will continue to believe until they give me some kind of valid reason "not the usual hypotheticals" to convince me I am wrong.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/28/2009 @ 10:25AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Robert, if someone is going to accuse another of being a racist over skiin color or ethnicity then they should at least have the fortitude to back that up by proving that with what the accused has actually said, don't you think? I have stated over and over that I have nothing against skin color, race or ethnicity and that is the God's truth yet it is totally ignored. This is about illegal imigration and nothing more. Just because I don't want the same type of CIR that some in here want does not make me a hater mongerer over skin color or race either. Really sad when one resorts to those kinds of hateful tactics on a fellow American with a different point of view.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 06/28/2009 @ 10:50AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Robert, When you read Mark posts you have to ask yourself; Why does this guy oppose a path to citizenship for people that have their roots tied in the US and want to be citizens of our nation. If Mark would come up with anything rather than the same "insignificant talking points that are based on rhetoric and hypotheticals" than maybe one would think he had some kind of a point.
When I read his rhetoric I keep thinking;
*Wheres the beef?
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/28/2009 @ 11:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Why does this guy oppose a path to citizenship for people that have their roots tied in the US and want to be citizens of our nation.
And exactly how many is that? How many only come here for their own economic gain? How was that 'root' layed? Who planted it? Has it become a weed or an invasive parasite?
Posted by Liquids Reign on 06/28/2009 @ 08:33PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
LR, I am sure that you feel as I do. Rewarding those who break our laws with citizenship no matter how long they managed to hide out from the law doesn't make any sense and it sends a signal to those waiting to do the same that all they have to do is wait for history to repeat itself again.
They planted their roots in violation of our immigration laws. They created their own problems by doing so. Put the blame where it belongs. We are all responsbile for our own actions.
As I so often have said, let's see some credible research done on the number of foreign laborers that we actually need and go from there. Nothing is stopping these families from reuniting in their homelands even where there is a mixed status involved. Mexico recognizes dual citizenship. As jobs open up for more immigrants they can re-apply to come here either as temporary workers or on a more permanent basis. Paths to citizenship should be based on their records from that point on rather than prior to that.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 06/29/2009 @ 06:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
They planted their roots in violation of our immigration laws.)Rewarding those who break our laws with citizenship no matter how long they managed to hide out from the law doesn't make any sense and it sends a signal to those waiting to do the same that all they have to do is wait for history to repeat itself again.)
And History has repeated itself Again and Again. Is it a violation to want to come here in search for a better life. The people of the US recently voted in CHANGE in overwhelming numbers "the largest voters turnout in US history".
*Is it a reward when you give someone a path to keep US familys from being split apart? "Or is it a choice of family values and sensablity."
*Should US borned citizens be faced with a decision the abandon their country because they met someone in the US and had a family with them? Should they have to be forced into a decision to live in Mexico because of the mess we are in.
*Who's fault was it anyway that these US born citizens have been caught in the middle of this mess? Were they suppose to secure the border? Were they suppose to Card people when they went out on a date? "I thought that our government, law enforcement and administration should have had a grip on this one." I trusted our prior administration to take care of the problem before it ended hurting US borned citizens.
*More immigrants want to come in. "Another hypothetical thrown in there....rhetoric" to avoid sensible real solutions that protect the innocent US citizens that became tangled in a broken immigration system and are dealing with single parenthood. "Not the American Dream we grew up believing in."
*More jobs! "temporary work permits" Kind of looks like the beginning of the same problem we are trying to fix. Temporary workers....expired visas...roots tied again....detentions and US familys split.
*It seems to me like the "RETRICTIONIST" is the core of the problem "since they advocate more of the same policys that give us the magnet to this mess."
*Folks, lets not keep these "RETRICTIONISTS" is business. "There policys are pretty darned transparent at this point."
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/29/2009 @ 08:08AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I trusted our prior administration to take care of the problem before it ended hurting US borned citizens.
The prior administraction did try to fix the issues, it was Congress who failed to solve the problems, put the blame where it lies. Harry Reid put an end to the 2007 debate.
The people of the US recently voted in CHANGE in overwhelming numbers "the largest voters turnout in US history".
The CHANGE wasn't about "immigration" as neither candidate really pushed the issue. The CHANGE was about the war and the economy. What you should have realised by now, is it was not the CHANGE you thought you were wanting. As for the largest turnout in history, maybe htat has to do with how many citizens we now have in the USA, a direct proportion issue.
*Folks, lets not keep these "RETRICTIONISTS" is business. "There policys are pretty darned transparent at this point."
Funny coming from someone whos inability to actually argue a point and present supporting facts; listening to the other point of view without labeling someone esle as one of your inept descriptions. By sweeping the full picture under the rug, dismissing any other unintended consequence, you yourself become the problem, the transparency is in your inane ignorance. You constantly blur the statements and the arguement to attempt to demonize the "other".
More jobs! "temporary work permits" Kind of looks like the beginning of the same problem we are trying to fix. Temporary workers....expired visas...roots tied again....detentions and US familys split.
By dismissing the above, you have just alienated many in Congress, lessonning the chance for CIR to pass, yet you, in your next paragraph, state that "Restictionists" are the problem. Oh, the IRONY in that.
I can keep going on, but I'm sure you get my point now. Its all politics, something you obviously know nothing about.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 06/29/2009 @ 06:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(put the blame where it lies. Harry Reid)
Kind of a strange blame to place. Afterall you claim you are a Democrat amongst lots of other things you claim to be?? LOL
(it was not the CHANGE you thought)
Gee!! Not thats pretty funny. Didn't Obama just have a meeting the other day and isn't apart of the CHANGE he is going to address include "a path to citizenship." This was the CHANGE I campaigned for and if you noticed both of the candidates didn't have to talk about Immigration Reform because "They both voted YES in the Senate to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform" when it failed in the Senate.
*Wasn't that a Mccain/Kenneddy bill??
Mccain won the republican primary and Kenneddy endorsed Obama
*Obama was the only Senator that marched in the Immigration March "A day without an Immigrant".
(By dismissing the above, you have just alienated many in Congress, lessonning the chance for CIR to pass, yet you, in your next paragraph, state that "Restictionists" are the problem. Oh, the IRONY in that.
I can keep going on, but I'm sure you get my point now. Its all politics, something you obviously know nothing about.)
Looks like your side is losing Micro!! cause it looks like your all ready to try to cut a Guest Workers Program Deal!!
Politics: LOL...Are you ready to make a bargain MICRO?? Your side lost and now you are trying to negotiate additional cheap labor. "My oh My!! you have revealed your true colors" Maybe your side will get a few more guest workers that include a path to citizenship for them also?? "We wouldn't want to give you any reasons make "retrictionist comments in the future"
I know nothing about politics? Your entitled to your opinion but it sure seems like my grassroots organization sure has surrounded me with a bunch of winners at the game.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/29/2009 @ 08:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Kind of a strange blame to place. Afterall you claim you are a Democrat amongst lots of other things you claim to be?? LOL
As I said, you have no idea of politics, I am a Conservative Democrat, not a Moderate or Progressive Democrat. You see, there are many factions to the party, but then you should already know that, right?
This was the CHANGE I campaigned for
http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority
Immigration seems to be pretty low on the priority list. All they are doing now is trying to appease, coming up with some sort of plan. The question is when will they come out with it and how different will it be from the previous plans? and since no plan is perfect, only more of the same packaged differently, what will be the change?
Looks like your side is losing Micro!! cause it looks like your all ready to try to cut a Guest Workers Program Deal!!
Your spin on it sure is promising. Again, as some deals are made to appease, others are lost, its politics.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 06/29/2009 @ 08:21PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Micro, That article was printed on Jan. 22.....that was 2 days after Obama was in office.
If Obama is appeasing it is only to get health care off the plate first. Any Democrat that has half a brain knows that Immigration is a wedge issue to get Latina voters out in great numbers.
Obviously, with a liberal in office; the bill is going to be more liberal than the previous one...considering the vast majority of senate seats happen to be liberal and alot of the conservative seats are moderates in office.
A Conservative Democrat? Like Dave put it "A Strom Thurmond Democrat" you are.
"And I went back to my brothers with that one; and I had them both laughing as we discussed Strom Thurmond."
Who actually switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party in 1964 and aided the "infamous" Barry Goldwater in his unsuccessful bid for the Presidency against Lyndon Johnson.
Spin! What's there to spin...Your side lost the day Obama won...its just a matter of pushing the issue to the plate faster.
Give it up Micro!! your wasting your time....everyone knows our immigration system is broken and 63% want CIR to pass and that includes a path to citizenship.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/29/2009 @ 08:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
By the way, I know the "wingnut" tricks. You always claim you are this and that and you will make up anything "all kinds of stuff" that you think you need to say to try to convince someone on your cause but Americans are far to savvy for that and its so transparent.
*You haven't exposed who you really are yet
*Not a picture...Nothing...Noda!!
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/29/2009 @ 08:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh and by the way Micro...when posting links I would appreciate if you would come up with CURRENT events.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/29/2009 @ 08:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You are obviously nothing but a lemming.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/our-view-on-coming-to-america-recession-freezes-immigration-debate-.html
Obama made a fleeting attempt last week to keep attention on the issue with a White House conference. But the truth is that fixing the economy and health care comes first, with energy issues also higher on the president's agenda. We wouldn't dispute the priorities, but the economic downturn provides a chance to make some gains, particularly in the workplace. When the economy picks up, as it surely will, illegal immigration will again become a crisis.
And the previous comment I left (Posted by Liquids Reign on 06/28/2009 @ 08:40PM PT) in talking about Schumer already conceding to the need of some sort of ID. But like you said, my side already lost due to Temp work Program.
Oh, and by the way Mary, maybe you should further your reading ability by reading more than just your activist propoganda.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 06/29/2009 @ 09:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Harry Reid already claims he has the majority in the Senate to pass the bill. The hold up is between guest worker programs and convincing the Unions but; "their agreements and negotiations are time consuming and they have a mess to deal with on many issues that the prior administration left us with." Immigration Reform will come but Obama is brillant when it comes to political timing and as the economy recovers he becomes even more populiar than he is now. Both Democrats and Republicans want to get this issue off the table.
*They do have to get health care off the table first. That does not make you win at all..the delay actually it hurts your side more in the long run.
*If it drags out until 2011...its going to be a super liberal bill because Republicans are going to lose more senate seats.
I really do not want to debate you anymore and nor does anyone else because they do not think you are all that brilliant "they think that you have a demented mind." Its ashamedthat all you achieved out of a Masters Degree is your silly posts and anti-people blogs. Maybe you should have took a major in psychology You should spend you life studying your own brain so that you can find a sensible solution to your hatred towards people.
I find it boring that you fall into my traps all the time. Just throw Micro a little bate and he bites all the time.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/29/2009 @ 11:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That does not make you win at all..the delay actually it hurts your side more in the long run.
I never stated my side was winning or would win, you stated your side was winning due to Guest Worker Program, quit confusing yourself.
If it drags out until 2011...its going to be a super liberal bill because Republicans are going to lose more senate seats.
Nothing but assumption. You have got to get past the Dem vs Rep ignorance floating in your head. Not all Dems agre to your terms of CIR, not all Repubs disagree with your temrs of CIR. You first must comprehend the "other" vs labeling. Maybe then you will have the ability to discuss comments vs showing your childish ignorance.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 06/30/2009 @ 06:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You must stop following me around the internet. You must stop looking up information on and stalking me on the net. You must stop posting my name up on other websites or I will contact the police department.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/30/2009 @ 07:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Comments are left as criticism or agreement to a topic. Therefor your comments can be used and attributed to you for criticism by others. If you feel the need to threaten me as you have, I suggest you contact my attorney, I'll let you know now, he'll laugh at you.
Now, again, you do no have to respond to my comments, if you don't like what I have to say, IGNORE them, however, I have every right to respond and criticise your comment as long as it falls within the "Comment Policy" of this blog.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 06/30/2009 @ 10:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Comments are one thing. Posting my information up on websites is a another story...and if there is a pic posted on "certain websites" it is a criminal offense. Do not post anything with my name used anywhere without my permission again.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 06/30/2009 @ 10:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
None of your information has been posted on any web site by me, I criticised your comment and gave attribution to it. I suggest that if you don't want your public infomration out there that you quit posting it yourself. I will post any comment you leave I so choose as long as it falls in the "fair use" laws, I will criticise any comment you leave if I so choose as allowed by "fair use" laws. I don't need your permission to criticise your comments. I suggest youlook up Fair Use and Copyrighted materials before you start imposing your threats to me.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 06/30/2009 @ 10:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm not talking about you commenting to me in a debate. That is OK by "fair use" laws but it is a criminal offense to open accounts under someones name.
We are not talking about my freedom to sign petitions and post under my own name and it is my right to be honest.
*It is a criminal offense to open accounts in someone else's name.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/01/2009 @ 08:57AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have opened NO ACCOUNT using your information. I have NO idea what you are talking about. I suggest before making assumptions of me doing something, you double check yourself. I have signed nothing under your name either.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 07/01/2009 @ 05:14PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I suggest that you delete "the inappropriate account" you set up under my name on 6.14 and delete it ASAP since you have the password.
You have serious problems to come up with something like that at your age.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 07/01/2009 @ 09:27AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I suggest you check yourself. The only one here with serious problems is you. I'm quite frankly tired of your accusations towards me, so unless you have some sort of proof I did anything, which I know for a fact you don't because I have done nothing, you should take it up with someone else. The one here with serious problems is you, mental problems.
Posted by Liquids Reign on 07/01/2009 @ 05:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
LR, I commend you. It is about time that these internet liars are held accountable for their slanders of others.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 07/01/2009 @ 07:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ok, no links to porn sites from comments please, and I'll be deleting any and all future comments that threaten lawsuits against other commenters.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 07/01/2009 @ 07:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.