Hispanics make up 37% of the populations of California and Texas, and 24% of Florida.
The majority of them are native born citizens, not illegals.
Nevertheless, Republicans insist on being dismissive, disrespectful of these people, and it hurts in terms of getting votes.
I don't know, maybe you do - do Hispanic people that were born here and those who came here legally want those who came in by the back door to have the same rights as they have by their legal status?
The facts say this: they don't like the way the GOP is seen to be demonizing people, illegal or not.Stated better than I could.
I don't know, maybe you do - do Hispanic people that were born here and those who came here legally want those who came in by the back door to have the same rights as they have by their legal status?Hispanics that are native born or naturalized citizens are all across the spectrum I think.
The facts say this: they don't like the way the GOP is seen to be demonizing people, illegal or not.They don't like the fact that their friends and family are being called out as the thieves they are. It's the same problem the welfare rats have when they're called out on their perpetual dependency.
Hispanics that are native born or naturalized citizens are all across the spectrum I think.
:thumbsup:
This is an important point with not only Hispanics but gays as well. These people would vote Republican if they didn't feel like the party hated them.
Jeb Bush: Give 11 Million Immigrants Chance to Stay
They don't like the fact that their friends and family are being called out as the thieves they are. It's the same problem the welfare rats have when they're called out on their perpetual dependency.That is a really good illustration of "demonizing," which harms the conservative cause of getting votes.
He is a devout Catholic, and conservative. But he told me it bothers him when Republicans act as if his Hispanic surname equals a wetback, which is precisely what you just did.
...
It is a problem for conservatives, which will solve itself. They will offend the very voters they need for survival.
Better pick up some of this:
(http://oi59.tinypic.com/67qwlu.jpg)
That is a really good illustration of "demonizing," which harms the conservative cause of getting votes.
My wife's cousin married a man that is 1/2 Hispanic including his surname. His father was career Air Force. His Hispanic family dates to the early 1800s when California was a colony of Spain.
He is a devout Catholic, and conservative. But he told me it bothers him when Republicans act as if his Hispanic surname equals a wetback, which is precisely what you just did.
I have numerous neighbors, friends, HS classmates that have Hispanic surnames, and served in uniform for our country.
Yet we also have people like you, who would see their name, and question if they have "friends and family " that are wetbacks.
We have a state named "New Mexico" which is probably a big surprise to low information conservatives.
Unwillingness or inability to see the harm caused by alienating and demonizing Hispanics seems just too hard for some so called "conservatives" to grasp.
It is a problem for conservatives, which will solve itself. They will offend the very voters they need for survival.
I don't understand how the GOP is seen as demonizing Hispanics when two of their candidates are Hispanic?
I don't care how conservative Jeb bush was as governor, his stance on illegal immigration now makes his candidacy a nonstarter for me.
And if I hear him say one more time that we are a nation of immigrants I think my head is going to explode.
We are a nation of legal immigrants.
I don't understand how the GOP is seen as demonizing Hispanics when two of their candidates are Hispanic?
He is an idiot the biggest cost in our country today is all the tax money being spent on these poor illegal immigrants who come here with nothing and give nothing back just take and take our welfare rolls are filled with them since Obama came into power. It was bad before but his stupid illegal executive orders has worsened the problem two fold.
P.S. "Go home and get in the back of the line" is dreaming of fairies and unicorns, that's not a policy position.
They're Cuban, not Hispanic.
Sorry Luis, my mistake.
Sorry Luis, my mistake.
All BS non-response responses set aside, "Hispanics" in the sense that most people understand that term, are descendants of the people who inhabited the New World prior to colonization. In other words, basically Native Americans who speak Spanish.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/240726-bush-defiant-on-immigration-im-right-about-this (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/240726-bush-defiant-on-immigration-im-right-about-this)
Bush defiant on immigration: ‘I’m right about this’
All BS non-response responses set aside, "Hispanics" in the sense that most people understand that term, are descendants of the people who inhabited the New World prior to colonization. In other words, basically Native Americans who speak Spanish.Since there are no good guidelines for complicated situation, I cling to my possible Hispanic category eligibility. I am certain of an ancestor with Catalonian naming; both first and last. The only question is did they originate in Spain, or in France (since ethnic and linguistic Catalonia spans both sides of the border).
Cubans are generally speaking are either black or white and have zero of the blood lines of the original inhabitants of the islands, since the Spaniards killed them all during the colonization process.
My whole problem with the term "Hispanic" is that creates an ethnicity based on nothing more than a common language. If ethnicities were that, then you and someone from Rwanda or Sierra Leone would be of the same ethnicity.
That doesn't work.
That BS line about "cut the benefits" is just that, BS. They're STILL far better off here without benefits than back in their home countries, with the added bonus of knowing that their children will qualify (according to many) as natural born citizens if born on US soil.
Since there are no good guidelines for complicated situation, I cling to my possible Hispanic category eligibility. I am certain of an ancestor with Catalonian naming; both first and last. The only question is did they originate in Spain, or in France (since ethnic and linguistic Catalonia spans both sides of the border).
Yeah and Cubans aren't Hispanics even though the U.S. Census Bureau says they are...
Since there are no good guidelines for complicated situation, I cling to my possible Hispanic category eligibility. I am certain of an ancestor with Catalonian naming; both first and last. The only question is did they originate in Spain, or in France (since ethnic and linguistic Catalonia spans both sides of the border).
"Hispanic" is a fabricated ethnicity.No argument with what you state. The census definitions were probably developed by government sociologists, in order to create a separate grievance category, for the purpose of dispensing benefits.
I have no common ancestry, social structure, cultural or national experience with these kids.
Nothing.
So how am I of the same ethnicity?
So tell me which viable GOP candidate/s is saying "round them all up and deport them."
"Hispanic" is a fabricated ethnicity.
Question for anyone who cares to answer:Read Texas and Mexico, historical novels by James Michener. In one he lays out the hierarchy of the people of Mexico.
Were there "Hispanics" before the year 1492?
If your answer is "no", then.... where did they come from?
Question for anyone who cares to answer:
Were there "Hispanics" before the year 1492?
If your answer is "no", then.... where did they come from?
A 'chance to stay' should be no more than a temporary reprieve. That means time to get in line for citizenship while taking no welfare, having a job, and committing no crime above a simple misdemeanor. Seal the border, and if they have made no effort to secure legal status by a certain time, they are subject to deportation. Streamline the process to speed up processing time.
Just dropping the welfare and forcing them to get a job will make many go home. Put the squeeze on them and a large part of the problem will take care of itself. Meanwhile, base immigration on reciprocal agreements. Mexico and many other countries have very strict immigration policies. If theirs is more strict than ours, then we go by theirs, simple as that.
Get to the back of the line, and do it the old fashioned way. The only thing you give them is some time do while they are here, instead of making them go home to do it. And not alot of time at that.
If they can't get it done, that's their problem. As I said, a temporary reprieve of deportation. Nothing else and no special treatment beyond that.
Everything you wanted in your earlier post including this and much more were in the two bills before the Senate in 2007.
Here's the most logical argument that I can make in order to discredit the actual ethnic group known as "Hispanics".
Everything you wanted in your earlier post including this and much more were in the two bills before the Senate in 2007.
Funny, isn't it?
Jeb is the only candidate taking a clearly stated position on the issue of illegal immigrants already in the country, and for that, he's getting hammered as a "squishy, liberal, moderate", while the candidates dancing, skirting and avoiding the issue altogether are "rock solid conservatives".
Me?
I'd rather make a decision on who to support based on their clearly stated policy positions than on rhetoric and political platitudes that create in my head an unsubstantiated picture of what I think that candidate will do about matters that are important to me.
Hispanic Americans and Latino Americans (Spanish: hispanos [isˈpanos], latinos) are an ethnolinguistic group of Americans with genealogical origins in the countries of Latin America and Spain.[5][6][7] More generally it includes all persons in the United States who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino whether fully or partially. Hispanics form an ethnicity sharing a language (Spanish) and cultural heritage, rather than a race.
FLASH: There is no way ANYBODY is going to be deported. If anything, the next Republican president will shift away from the current African/Middle-East 'preference' and open the doors to Caucasian Europeans. Those fleeing the Islamic tide.
No sir/mam. They will be given citizenship with full voting rights.
As Cher said, with a loud slap to the face in Moonstruck...SNAP OUT OF IT!!
We all should know that Jeb Bush is right. There is no other way, if you ever expect to win another election for the next 60 years.
I am no Jeb Bush fan running for POTUS. The Bush name makes it a cakewalk to victory for the Democrats. And it pisses me off that evidently he doesn't 'see' that.
What the hell kind of air do they breathe?
And some of those things he has said are disturbing. It all depends on what he means by legal status.
Funny, isn't it?
Jeb is the only candidate taking a clearly stated position on the issue of illegal immigrants already in the country, and for that, he's getting hammered as a "squishy, liberal, moderate", while the candidates dancing, skirting and avoiding the issue altogether are "rock solid conservatives".
Me?
I'd rather make a decision on who to support based on their clearly stated policy positions than on rhetoric and political platitudes that create in my head an unsubstantiated picture of what I think that candidate will do about matters that are important to me.
Let me guess - those bills died an ugly death, quietly in committee.
Actually neither did. They were filibustered to death by Republicans.
I think that if every candidate told us where they truly stood on hot button topics, rather than what they know they have to say in order to get support, we wouldn't like any of them, because basically, and as you stated the problem so clearly, the only viable solution is unpalatable to most.
If Reagan, this age's conservative icon, only saw one viable solution, who in the field is better than Reagan to come up with a better solution?
I think the key and solution for us...as voters and active citizens who care about governmental control, is to keep reminding ourselves that the outrage and screams we'll be hearing on the forums doesn't represent what the majority believe and want.
'We' are not as strong a voting bloc as some of us think we are.
Otherwise, we're no different than Jeb Bush's mindset. And, IMO, that's dangerous.
I think the key and solution for us...as voters and active citizens who care about governmental control, is to keep reminding ourselves that the outrage and screams we'll be hearing on the forums doesn't represent what the majority believe and want.
'We' are not as strong a voting bloc as some of us think we are.
Otherwise, we're no different than Jeb Bush's mindset. And, IMO, that's dangerous.
What did it mean to Reagan?
By conservatives in the Republican Party.
Actually neither did. They were filibustered to death by Republicans.
Personally I couldn't care less about voting blocs! All I care about is electing people who will follow the Constitution and enforce the laws as they exist! NOT as they wish they existed!
How much crap though were in those bills that wasn't good? Knowing the Dems were in control, I expect they were all trojan horses.
Nice rhetorical sidestep there, but that cutsie stuff doesn't mean crap to me. I loved Reagan but by no means was he policy perfect. He had the kind of missteps of the moment that we all look back and regret, and he regretted that decision. Of course that came the promise from the Dems that they'd fix the system and the lied. Not biting a second time on that.
I'm strictly looking at what needs to be done going forward, and have zero desire to reward anyone who came here illegally then parked their ass on welfare while committing heinous crimes. I'm willing though to give them a temporary reprieve while at the same time offering the carrot to streamline the immigration process so that it doesn't take so long to properly achieve legal status. But with that comes the idea that they need to have a job and keep their record clean and pay their taxes, and no identity theft crap either. We seal the border, e-verify, then institute reciprocal agreements and job sponsoring.
Those that can't cut it will be deported. Many will self-deport, much like what we saw when the economy collapsed in '08 and when various states tightened their own laws. We will put the squeeze on them and let the cream rise to the top. There is no instant solution, since we don't have the cajones to do what Eisenhower did, but a long term plan that steadily rights the ship is possible and workable.
I have no problem with Mexicans. They are hard workers, and where I grew up we had a community that have been there many generations, and many are lifelong friends. But I hate cheats and freeloaders of any stripe and that kind of thing has to stop. I also hate our leaders who pimp them for votes and want to give them the farm just because 'they are already here'.
Conservatives will never again see anything approaching those two bills. They required certified border control, certified new employer sanctions, certification of new biometric id for all those entering the Country, even before any legalization could take place. Those to be legalized had to have a job, no serious criminal issues, no gang history, no welfare throughout the legalization process, and pay a series of fines and penalties as well as go to the back of the line. Additionally, the bills ended chain migration and the diversity lottery. The new laws would require only those allowed in under any type of permanent status to have education and skills that complied with a congressionally approved list of needs within the Country. And of course, Americans to be offered any new job availability before immigrants. It wasn't amnesty, as each had to be background checked, and as I said pay a series of fines and penalties.
What is it you would like to see in an immigration reform package that wasn't covered?
Wouldn't that eliminate Senator Cruz then, given that in your opinion he isn't a natural born citizen?The definition that I understood for "natural born citizen" would have precluded Cruz, due to birth outside the US.
You dodged the point. What did the Dems put in that created some loophole to make the law crap and advance their liberal agenda? No doubt there was something, and they knew that when they did it to get the GOP to reject it.
You dodged the point. What did the Dems put in that created some loophole to make the law crap and advance their liberal agenda? No doubt there was something, and they knew that when they did it to get the GOP to reject it.
In principle I agree with Bush on this issue, but I take issue with the idea of "granting legal status" to illegal immigrants This granting will inevitably lead to bureaucracy, patronage, a path to citizenship and the conferring of public benefits as the president expands policies and the courts weigh in once the law is enacted. I would prefer simply "removing the illegal status" so that these people are not prevented from exercising their fundamental human rights in this country if they so choose. Beyond that, there should be no capability for them to receive public benefits or influence public policy in any way, shape or form. And there should definitely be no "path to citizenship," which is code for "use your numbers to vote yourself benefits from the public purse."
Some are arguing that the proposals that were defeated were the best we could do. Not true. None of the amnesty proposals put forward was better than simply keeping the existing laws in place. The existing law is flawed, but it is better than new bureaucracies, expanded benefits and basically letting the Democrats add 10 million people o their party so they can accelerate their time clock for turning the country into a socialist "paradise" like Cuba, Venezuela or Argentina.
The definition that I understood for "natural born citizen" would have precluded Cruz, due to birth outside the US.
When George Romney ran in 1968, a legal opinion was written for the Congress, which concluded he was NOT eligible, because he was born in Mexico, although to US citizen parents. It didn't matter, because Romney dropped out, and many other issues and topics dominated politics and the news that year.
When all the controversy arose over Obama, mention of McCain arose, and the bill passed to deem him eligible.
McCain was born in an hospital in Panama while his Navy father served there. It was tantamount to declaring the location of a hospital and the father's service, were equivalent to a diplomatic situation.
The historical determination was either born in the US, or if born abroad must be diplomatic status.
Following that interpretation Cruz would NOT be eligible, but Rubio and Obama would be eligible.
That's a single generation issue.
The children of illegal aliens, irrespective of their parent's legal status, will be born US citizens, with all rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution. So then, in a strictly political sense, are Republicans better off marginalizing that future voting block or just bitting the bullet now and making a play for it?
I dodged no point. I told you what the main parts of the bills were. And the GOP didn't reject it, a handful filibustered it. Had it gone to a vote, it would have passed. Those who voted to continue the debate were influenced by issues having nothing to do with the bill itself, but rather attempts to paint all Hispanic/Latinos as drug peddling, tax cheating welfare chasing rapists who refuse to speak English, and come here simply to make and drop off babies. Much easier for Tanton's groups to go after non-Europeans in general than issues within the bill, especially since most Americans wanted exactly what was in the proposed legislation.
What Obama has done in his "amnesty" program is deplorable. But the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. In almost every poll for the past 10 to 12 years, most Americans want comprehensive immigration reform, and want some type of legalization for those already here. No one, either R or D is going to deport 11 million illegals, not now, not ever. It's time the GOP woke up and determine to deal with it, rather than put it off year after year.
It's not just about better border security or employer sanctions, legalization decisions or a multitude of other absurd sections of the current law. It's about all of it! And that's the only way it can be dealt with.
Wouldn't that eliminate Senator Cruz then, given that in your opinion he isn't a natural born citizen?
The main parts yes. But what was the devil in the details? What was the turd the Dems put in there to make the GOP vote against the bill even though the rest was good? Until someone shows me that wasn't the issue, I'm skeptical.
The main parts yes. But what was the devil in the details? What was the turd the Dems put in there to make the GOP vote against the bill even though the rest was good? Until someone shows me that wasn't the issue, I'm skeptical.
Yes!
Before Harry Reid put those two bills before the whole Senate, he was betting the Republicans would filibuster, then he could withdraw and table them. He could then make an appeal to Hispanic voters that the Republicans were just being racist since all of their issues with the bill had been settled, when Kennedy finally agreed to an amendment making anyone with any gang affiliation ineligible for legalization.
It was quite a gamble...and it worked. Are we (Americans) better off today? Hardly.
Exactly. There was a turd used by Reid to manipulate, and also the pathway to citizenship that conservatives rejected. There were also other amendments that Dems offered that soured the soup. And it wasn't just conservatives that didn't support it, even some unions and LULAC went against it. The final cloture vote against included 16 Democrats, some of whom were against the bill because it would have meant W would have signed it and got the credit.
The reality is a little more complicated than what you've set forth.
Let's dispense with the name calling please!
Hispanic Americans and Latino Americans (Spanish: hispanos [isˈpanos], latinos) are an ethnolinguistic group of Americans with genealogical origins in the countries of Latin America and Spain.[5][6][7] More generally it includes all persons in the United States who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino whether fully or partially. Hispanics form an ethnicity sharing a language (Spanish) and cultural heritage, rather than a race.Which is consistent with what I posted...
"The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic) to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American (except for Brazil), or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race" and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity."
They're Cuban, not Hispanic.
More generally it includes all persons in the United States who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino whether fully or partially.
And means that Ted Cruz and Marc Rubio are Hispanic from their Cuban origin and insisting "They're Cuban, not Hispanic" (which is where all this started) is simply wrong.
I guess that means that I am Hispanic if I want to be?If Bruce Jenner can be a woman, you can be anything you want big guy.
Isn't that a little like calling George Zimmerman a white Hispanic? Those that lean left tend to bend things as they see fit.Don't think so. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_RHI825213.htm) includes Cubans in their definition of Hispanics...