Hispanic Group Convenes in Sensenbrenner's (R, WI) Backyard

JSOnline via AP ^ | June 26, 2006 | Emily Fredrix

[janetgreen]

Sensenbrenner's one of the good guys.

If the mental defectives in Washington pass this amnesty, the REST of Mexico will be here. Our laws mean nothing when Mexico's slave labor is involved.

Guess it won't matter anyway, if Bush and his globalist buddies get their way and erase the borders via the CFR and the "North American Union". We're screwed either way.

I've never regretted a vote as much as my vote for GWB in 2000. He is not what he claimed to be.

[Richard-SIA]

Send ICE, and lots of paddy wagons, it sounds like a "target rich environment".

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Sensenbrenner's "backyard" isn't Milwaukeestan. It's the suburban areas around it.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Mehlman's a fool for speaking at this event....enough said.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

What are you suggesting the GOP do, spit on the mexicans?

Strawman argument.

Dane, is that you?

[garbageseeker]

Bump

[stephenjohnbanker]

R O T F L M A O

[LukeL]

I am proud he is my congressman.

[stephenjohnbanker]

B U M P

[antisocial]

"What are you suggesting the GOP do, spit on the mexicans?"

Well I guess if they want to after they deport them.

[Ben Ficklin]

LULAC? Try the Chamber of Commerce.

[gunsofaugust]

You have it right. I feel for many of these illegals, some are simple Catholic peasants, who are seeking to better their lives.

After thinking this over carefully, as a Catholic, I still want the blatant lawbreaking to stop, now. There is no excuse for breaking the law as a matter of life, and it seems those who water down or ignore our law always seem to be the left or liberal republican sellouts.

[Ben Ficklin]

The demographic reality is that the hispanic population will become a larger and larger percent of total population and will become more and more politically powerful.

While you and many others think that if the illegals were to be deported, this inevitability would be avoided. Not so. If you crunch the numbers, deportation will only delay the inevitable.

Likewise, you have no comprehension of the significance of political activity among the hispanics. As you pointed out above, hispanics favor democrats. Historically, turnout among hispanics has been low so the benefit to democrats has been minimized. As you, Tandredo, Senselessbrenner, and other extrmemists try to dehumanize them, the hispanics will organize and turnout in higher numbers, benefitting the dems even more.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

As you, Tandredo, Senselessbrenner, and other extrmemists try to dehumanize them, the hispanics will organize and turnout in higher numbers, benefitting the dems even more.

So what is your answer then, which you've yet given us? Leave the borders wide open and continue to give more amnesties? I suggested the alternative to that in post #28, please read it.

If the GOP wants that demographic vote they should earn it the way they have with other groups. Leaving the borders open and pandering with more endless amnesties is not the solution for the country's long term health.

Too bad for your cheap labor, open border plans but I and many others don't want to live in a country where we're packed in like sardines and neither should our kids and grandkids be expected to just so your Wall St. Journal friends can increase their profits and stock dividends.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Had President Bush received 0% among Hispanics, he wouldn't have carried Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, or even Texas. John Kerry would have been elected president with 349 electoral votes to only 189 for President Bush.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Bush received only slightly more than the traditional vote of that demographic. My point had to do with the fact that Mehlman and others in the GOP believe if we give amnesties and keep the borders open that percentage can be increased. I disagree.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Bush received only slightly more than the traditional vote of that demographic."

---

Bush's 40%+ showing among Hispanic voters in 2004 was remarkable not because Hispanics had given him only 35% in 2000, but because the increasing number of Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans in the electorate would have probably resulted in Bush getting less than 30% in 2004 had he not reached out to Hispanic voters and pointed out that they had more in common with the GOP than with the RATs. President Bush appears to have carried the Puerto Rican vote in the Orlando area (mostly comprised of recent arrivals from Puerto Rico, who were not predisposed to voting Democrat and who thus gave President Bush a fair shake; Orlando-area Puerto Ricans who moved down from NYC and Chicago are still heavily Democrat), and he improved his support among Mexican-Americans in many states, especially in Texas and California. It was a remarkable performance.


"My point had to do with the fact that Mehlman and others in the GOP believe if we give amnesties and keep the borders open that percentage can be increased. I disagree."

---

Well, I too disagree with amnesty and agree with you that it is bad politics if that is indeed what is being sought. But I don't think that Bush is trying to capture a larger share of the Hispanic vote by promoting a guest-worker program, I merely think he is trying to balance the interests of employers seeking manual labor and Hispanics who want to work in the U.S. with concerns for protecting our border and respect for the rule of law. I think that President Bush's plan is unwise, since it (i) doesn't condition guest-worker status with having applied from outside the U.S. and (ii) doesn't limit entry to the U.S. to the worker himself (if the entire family comes in, the costs are much higher, and any children born in the U.s. would be U.s. citizens), but I don't think Bush is doing this as part of a Hispanic outreach program.

Still, we must be careful with the way we express out opposition to the guest-worker proposal, since the last thing we need is to send socially conservative Hispanic voters running towards the RAT Party.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

In 1984 Reagan got 38%+ of that vote by just being himself and promoting conservative ideals. Although the amnesty came two years later there was still strict interior enforcement going on throughout his administration. I agree about not demagoging the issue but it has to be discussed and it shouldn't even begin until the borders are secured. I'm not disagreeing with you so much but with Mehlman and Bush and McCain and others who want to take a different course.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"In 1984 Reagan got 38%+ of that vote by just being himself and promoting conservative ideals."

---

Yes, Reagan got 38% of the Hispanic vote (and over 60% of the non-Hispanic vote, by the way), but that was a Hispanic vote with a much larger percentage of Cuban-Americans and a much lower percentage of Mexican-Americans than it is now. One can't compare vote percentages among Hispanics in 1984 to those in 2004 without taking into account the demographic shift in the Hispanic electorate.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

One can't compare vote percentages among Hispanics in 1984 to those in 2004 without taking into account the demographic shift in the Hispanic electorate.

Maybe but the overwhelming majority of voters are still comprised of other groups and they are not going to take well to amnesty. The best thing the government can do for now is stop the bleeding then begin talking about what to do with those here. That's where Sensenbrenner and the House want to go and I think they're right. Leaving the borders open while pushing for more amnesties as McCain and others are doing is pure insanity.