“The Republican strategy is all about undoing what the president has done, not doing anything proactively. The message the Latino community is receiving is one of pettiness — they’re just hearing that Republicans want to treat them all as illegals,” “It’s not good policy, and politically, it sends a terrible message.” - Alfonso Aguilar, a former Bush administration official.
Thanks for the information... I've heard different things. One older Mexican American gentleman told me he didn't like the word Latino because Mexicans are an indigenous people. I'm going to stick to the safe terminology going forward. And republicans should be careful because I read somewhere that 20-27% of the under 18 population is Hispanic. My other question is do Hispanics want more of a US presence in Mexico? With the ruthlessness of the cartels and crooked politicians... It's hard to expect not to have an immigration issue in this country.
Wrong about 70% of Latinos are Dems. The Grand Old Tea Party is increasing the percentage with this type of move.
lol African Americans are hip to the voter suppression, anti-affirmative actions and other policies that hurt African Americans. They are also very aware that the GOP has to always placate the racists who still have quite a bit of clout, especially in the GOP Southern stronghold.
No, he's dead. The only thing your convoluted misattribution and insertion of him into this issue demonstrates is that you think blacks and Hispanics have to "fight" each other for work, because their professional skills and prospects don't align with those of Caucasians, moron.
Perhaps I am confused by this internet battle royale, but wasn't the article the poster published in a right wing newspaper, and didn't that article insert MLK (wrongly) in this debate? If I am following this correctly, shouldn't you be criticizing and disagreeing with the Washington Examiner? btw, it also has a linked piece: Seems to me you should be writing a letter to the Examiner editor...
The immigration executive order by Obama was not intended to help Latinos at all -- it was intended to be used as a wedge issue and weapon against Republicans. Obama's advisors (let's face it, they run the show, not him) rightly anticipated a Republican attempt to counteract this measure. When that happened, the administration wanted to pounce and drag out the argument that Republicans are against Latinos. It does a few things for the administration: #1 it distracts from the midterm election route, #2 it distracts from Obama's incompetence, and #3 it could potentially reinvigorate an otherwise disillusioned political group (Latinos) who have been upset over all of Obama's broken promises toward Latinos. Bottom line is this: Obama is once again playing politics and not leading. It's so transparent. Jeb Bush is in prime position to rally support from Latino voters. Hillary has no morals and Bill is the dirtiest person in politics -- people who have been voting for 20 years remember this well when he lied to the American people, cheated on his wife too many times to count, and disgraced the office of the Presidency. America will be reminded of this -- bank on it.
Personally -- and I certainly can't speak for all Hispanics -- I cannot see how we really could have a greater presence in Mexico, considering our industrial and tourism connections. However, I do believe we need to put one of two illegal immigration solutions into place. We either offer annexation and integration of Mexico into the United States or we set up strict penalties (fines of $10,000 per violation, perhaps) for housing and/or employing illegals. Because employment and shelter would dry up quickly, illegals would be forced out of the country without putting anyone in jail (except common criminals). The people of Mexico are much too proud to surrender their national sovereignty, but it would make economic sense for both countries. I think Mexico would be the big winner in the short term, but the United States in the long run would be far stronger.
That's crap, ATX reaffirmed his agreement with the Examiner's arguments in his second comment, in this forum, so that's where and to whom my follow-up rebuttal is correctly targeted.
I remember that Bill Clinton. It was a nice period of time with much optimism. I mean, we were talking about surpluses for years down the road with the debt finally a chance to be gone and the nation's financial looking strong. Then Bush Jr came along and boom, so much drags.
My parents and all their friends love Obama and consider the Republican party the party of hate and intolerance. Good luck in 2016.
It looks like you didn't bother to read the excerpt that I copied from the article and misconstrued that I had written it. The only thing I had posted is at the bottom. "I wouldn't be so smug in your yet to be won victory. " I never made any comment regarding "They Be Taking my jobs, You should Know your place!!!" It was simply to show the original poster of the thread per title. That there are many opinions in regards to this issue and its not as clear cut as it seems. I can pull up many more instances of Chicago Community leaders who oppose immigration reform for "They Be Taking my benies I deserve more" I know its easy to just scream racism and ignore anyone who opposes your view as an Uncle Tom or sell out. Its like putting your fingers in your ears and yelling lalala until the other stops speaking and rejoicing that you won. The last election cycle should show that victory isn't as easy as was thought and to just assume a win because you feel morally superior and your cause is just is a mistake.
I know I fell for your weak-sauce race bait attempt. Martin Luther King Jr. is dead physically but his message does live on. The first sentence from the article says "enlisted help from MLK" I doubt that help comes from an Ouija board. As poorly written articles are today, It would imply that the MLK foundation is backing this initiative, or the reactions and lawsuits would be flying considering how protective the family is of MLKs image and writings. See his statue in DC as an example.
I didn't assume you wrote the article; you posted it and wrote no contrasting opinions, so I prudently conjectured you agreed with it and responded on that basis. You posted the article and clearly agreed with the premise that blacks resent employment opportunities for Hispanics, which entails the presumption that blacks' professional outlook and trajectory is such that they can only identify and compete with Hispanics: actually, more narrowly, undocumented, recently immigrated ones. None of them are named MLK. Not now or 50 years ago when he would have been around. And none of them are in the text of this article. And none of them would have uttered your mush-mouthed garbage quote (which you will probably try to disavow later). It's easier to scream "moron" when you try to tangentially associate narrow, sloppy opinions to public figures. I don't know what I'm supposed to infer from the self-directed Uncle Tom comment. You probably could have just posted this initially, but that article was stupid enough on it's own to undercut that logic.
So you don't think the cartels having a strangle hold on Mexico is an issue... And I don't think we can just offer annexation to a country were the people with the most power would just walk weapons of mass destruction into the US for ISIS and Al Qaeda.
