Fair distinction, but IMO had the Republicans not gone the way they have in the last 12 months or so on some of these issues, they would have had just as good a chance of picking that block up as well. Hispanics tend to be socially very conservative and very Christian. It really took a lot to drive them into the ranks of the Democrats, and even now, they could be won back pretty easily if the GOP put in a decent attempt at it.
It doesn't matter who is in power, if the voting block gets in place it will serve both republican AND democrat agenda's... they really are the left and right arms of the 'big government party', they just have different preferences.
That's not the stuff that offended the hispanic voters. Hispanics poll as being pretty pro-gun. Moreso than whites. What offended them was the racial attacks. For example, the biggest negative stereotype against hispanics is that they are "hot tempered". Republican senators used exactly those words to describe Sotomayor... I mean, the woman is a supreme court justice. She spent like 16 hours a day quietly reading in a law library for like 20 years... "Hot tempered" is how you describe a dog that won't stop biting people, not a judge... That really struck an ugly cord with hispanic voters. Either that means that the senators were intentionally trying to appeal to a racial stereotype to attack her, or they really were so out of touch with hispanics that they didn't realize what they were doing, but either way, not the party you'd vote for if you were hispanic.
Ok... I'm ignorant about this... but 'hot tempered' hardly seems to be a 'racial slur'... I shouldn't really say much about sotomayor, but from what I did hear given the chance she will end the second amendment... the one good thing I did hear about here, in fairness, was that she opposed corporate personhood...
And then the attacks on her about the 'wise latina' remarks were poorly done. The actual context of her remarks was completely positive. She was trying to respond to negative stereotypes against hispanics and women on the bench, not trying for some kind of hispanic female supremacy or something... She didn't really word it right, but whatever, everybody knows that was her intention, so going after her like that just smacks of an attempt to stir up racial conflict against hispanics to me, and to many hispanic voters.
That's possible... though, I'm specifically ignorant, I have been told the perspecitve that her remarks were of a veiled hispanic supremacy... so, whether or not that was her intention, it seems that she successfully created a division where there was none prior.
La Raza is a civil rights organization... They are the opposite of the KKK... They provide legal services to people who believe they have been discriminated against, scholarships, economic opportunities, etc. The KKK lynches people and calls for ethnic cleansing... To compare the two is just crazy... Freaking Walmart and Citigroup and whatnot donate money to La Raza for goodness sake. And, La Raza is primarily about protecting the rights of citizens.
Yes... so long as you're hispanic. Walmart and citigroup... lol that goes to make my point stronger, since walmart makes billions off it's exploitation of minorities... and citigroup... well, you don't get to be a 'too big to fail' institution by throwing money around, unless it's to garner use of someone's political clout, to keep the response short. You could argue that the Black Panthers was a 'civil rights group', you could argue that the Taliban is a 'civil rights group fighting for their right to live'.
The point of the matter is that I've seen what some of these hispanic teachers are calling for... they want to take down the capitalist system, thinking the ideal is communism. Not even knowing that the same bankers that fund them WANT to turn america into a communist type of country, and are using them as a tool to accomplish just that.
I'm guessing you mean 1070 only. 1070 was originally written to allow racial profiling, then they caved in to the pressure and the house amended it to prohibit racial profiling. That was good, but we still have to look at how it is used. Arpaio is clearly racially profiling and 1070 will just ramp that up into hyperdrive.
If the cops are racially profiling people, and you have evidence of it, then sue the cop... that's part of the republic. The cop is no more above the law (though he may try to be, and will have the favor of his word, so hard proof would be necessary).
But, that is only one of several anti-hispanic laws in AZ from the past few months. They also passed a law banning cultural studies courses, english only laws, a law to fire teachers who have accents, they're even proposing a law to deny birth certificates to citizen born here if their parents are illegal immigrants.
on the surface I would disagree with all those laws except for the last one... frankly, there are too many people that intentionally make 'anchor babies' to secure their position in the US. Also, that most of these laws could likely be challenged on their constitutionality... and they should be.
Yeah. That is, IMO, not about illegal immigration, it is about the drug trafficking. That I do think is a serious issue and should be dealt with accordingly.
Unfortunately the two have become intertwined, because if the 'illegal immigration' was under control, the drug traffickers would KNOW that it's not worth the risk. Now, like fungus sporing, it's quickly turning into a rampant problem.
I don't believe that. The studies I've seen have all found that illegal immigrants actually commit far fewer crimes per capita. If that is changing that radically, I would need to see some evidence backing that up.
I'll clarify, MOST of the actual immigrants that come to the US are from Mexico, and most of the time they become 'illegal immigrants' by 'overstaying their welcome'. Now, of those illegal immigrants, they simply want to work and be left alone like anyone else, and they are not commiting any crimes themselves.
That said, the criminals that come in are much more brazen in their crimes because they don't have any allegiance to the country in the first place... my heart goes out to those illegals that must get sent home with their anchor babies because they couldn't fill out the paper work... they will leave with the taste for freedom like a dogs taste for blood and they will turn Mexico into a country that is free from those criminals and drug lord tyrants that plague the country.
I have a tough love for these individuals who were used as a political tool, acting as a steam valve that allowed Mexico to deteriorate as it has into a failed state. Had the US been sterner with them in the beginning, they would have seen the freedom that is their goal, and that they must fight for it and earn their freedom either through immigrating legally, or through revolution of their own country.
No way. We can't presume that everything a member of one party claims about the other is true unless there is proof they are lying... To believe something somebody says about the opposition they need to be able to back it up with evidence. Otherwise we could just all go around making up whatever we wanted. Winning an election would be as easy as making up the nastiest story about the other side...
Ok.... of course politicians lie about stuff... but you are stuck in this 'left-right' pattern of thinking... Senator Kyl was not talking as a 'republican' he was talking as an 'american' to other americans who are concerned with what is going on in their state.
When people are being killed and the cops are overwhelmed begging for help, how else would you expect him to say 'help is not coming'... even if the story is false, his delivery makes the statement clear : "HELP IS NOT COMING!!!!!!!"
As for your tale about the nastiest stories... isn't that how it happens??
I'm betting you believe that a politician is always looking for an angle. Don't you really? Competing at that level politically is a cut throat game. The ones that don't use every angle at their disposal get beat out.
