Posted on 02/24/2008 1:37:15 PM PST by lowbridge
No political party can prevail nationally on Anglo votes alone, so the long-term danger to Republicans is that their party is sending a message to Latinos that it doesn't want us.
"There has been too much of an anti-immigration tone," Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Belart, a South Florida Republican congressmen, told USA Today. "When people start to perceive that immigrants are being put in the same category as a threat to national security, it's hard to get your message across."
-snip
"Bush has worked incredibly hard for his Hispanic vote share. He reversed historic Republican Party positions on issues of importance to Hispanics and showed a willingness to listen to the needs of the Latino community."
That respectful romance with Latinos ended abruptly in the lead up to the November 2006 elections, when extremists on immigration hijacked the GOP.
One of them, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, may wish he had taken a more moderate stance instead of essentially adopting the position of the Minutemen and similar radical anti-immigration groups. These groups promulgate their wildly exaggerated portrayal of a cascade of brown people overwhelming our southern borders, running loose to rape, steal and murder on the streets of our cities.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Or Peter Wyngarde
If we made it easier for illegals to become legal, we wouldn't have an illegal problem. Just allow anyone who can get here to be automatic citizens and vote in our next election. Right? That would end all our problems along with the country, but somehow I suspect that would not bother you any.
"Why is it that Republicans think that a background check for a citizen to purchase a gun should take less than 2 minutes but dont mind that a background check for an alien wanting to become a permanent resident takes more than 2 years?"
Ummmm, the Constitution, maybe? I know you won't believe this, but citizenship or permanent legal status should not be cheap. The citizens of this country do now OWE citizens of foreign countries who desire to be permanent residents ANYTHING, unless they can contribute something to the country.
Geraldo is a LIBERAL who defended the Clintons through thick and thin, period. He would never vote for a Republican/Conservative, never.
Illegal entry, BTW, is a misdemeanor. Also BTW, not to worry. The Mexican "Tsunami" is receding somewhat because apparently almost every Mexican who wants to be here, is already here. The new "Tide," or "Torrent," is increasing made up of illegal immimgrants into Mexico who are just transiting to the US, that is double-illegals.
My advice? Learn to speak Spanish a lot better than "Geraldo Rivera," who reinvented himself as a Puerto Rican to get a job in broadcasting, and even then had to marry the boss' daughter to get anywhere.
Geraldo has ALWAYS been a surrender monkey on immigration.
even in his 20/20 days he coddled the illegal aliens with his pro illegal BS.
Geraldo needs to go. He has no place in legit journalism.
Very foolish to group Latinos together in the US. Whoraldo background is Puerto Rican, this is very different from someone with a Central American background or a South American background.
“John McCain will win a lot of hispanic votes not only because of his positions on immigration, but because the guy is a war hero, patriot and anti-communist.”
John McCain will lose a lot of conservative Republican votes not only because of his positions on immigration, but because the guy believes in global warming, hates the 1st Amendment, and is a crook.
He supports and agrees with a traitor (Juan Hernandez). How does that make him a patriot?
Jerry said way back when that JFK was the only President that we would ever love.
Whoraldo is a prevaricating phoney.
How does that make him [McCain] a patriot?
I suppose you must be a highly-decorated veteran, in order to question the patriotism of John McCain. This would make you the first one I know of, who does that. Contact the New York Times right now, in order to get the the news coverage you deserve.
And, as one veteran to another, I’ll say this, you might have some wierd views, but I certainly appreciate your defense of this country and I am glad to have defended your freedoms.
You do see the inherent contradiction in your statement, don't you? By definition, illegal aliens aren't law-abiding.
Oh, get off it. Benedict Arnold was a war hero before he became a traitor. I most certainly will question the patriotism of any man who agrees with Juan Hernandez. John McCain agrees with that man. Past honorable service DOES NOT EXCUSE CURRENT ACTIONS!!!!!
The “how dare you question their patriotism” garbage is a Dem tactic. Stop with the identity politics.
“you might have some wierd views”
Being a conservative is weird now? Objecting to the defiling of the Constitution is weird now?
I take it you are NOT a highly-decorated veteran. Perhaps not a veteran at all.
Perhaps you at least contribute money to advance the cause of freedom, such as by supporting this website.
But, if, up to this point in your life, you have done anything to advance the cause of freedom, now is a good time to begin.
My Dad was a naval aviator when McCain was in. Unfortunately, when I was young enough to pick a naval career, RK surgery was new. I correct to 20/15 (I’m nationally ranked with the M16 service rifle), but uncorrected is 20/400. So, no naval career for me. I serve in a civilian capacity. Yes, that’s possible. If not for us, the pointy end of the stick wouldn’t have anything to shoot with, nor would they have better equipment than the other side.
Of course, that’s not the point. You are either unable or unwilling to discuss McCain’s record. The man apparently believes the United States should not have a border. That’s what his friend Hernandez believes, and McCain has said he agrees with him. Past honorable actions do not excuse current dishonorable ones.
So, with no capability for form a rational argument, you use the ad hominem tactic to attack me to deflect attention from your boy’s abysmal record.
“But, if, up to this point in your life, you have done anything to advance the cause of freedom, now is a good time to begin.”
So, is THAT what John McCain was doing when he went after the 1st Amendment? Perhaps his crooked deals like the one he had with Keating? Why did he push to normalize relations with Vietnam and close the MIA files? Why does he work for Soros?
Being a mere infantryman, I don’t quite understand why not qualifying for a naval aviator disqualified you from service. My battalion had a lot of hispanics, among our enlisted men and my fellow officers.
John McCain’s lifetime ACU rating is about average for a Republican. He is actually quite good on some issues, but disappointing in some others. He was neither my first nor second choice for the Republican nomination, in a field that, overall, I wasn’t impressed with.
Barak Obama has the most “liberal” record in the U.S. Senate (for the part-year he actually participated) (”socialist” would be a more accurate description). He is supported by Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and Minister Farrakhan. Of course, he did not serve in our country’s military.
Law-abiding foreigners by definition can only include those who enter the country legally.
If you make it easier to enter legally, fewer will go to the trouble to enter illegally. If you make it easier to stay legally, fewer will stay illegally.
A retired Brit, may enter the country as a tourist, but stay and buy a house in Florida. After his tourist visa expires, even though he has applied for permanent residency, he is staying here illegally. The system is so slow that he may die before he gets his green card.
There is no reason for the delay. Sports stars can be recruited and get their visas in a matter of days. But if you’re recruiting a paralegal with Portuguese language abilities, be prepared to wait.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.