PDA

View Full Version : GOP Squandering The Hispanic Vote



DiabloViejo
08-26-2012, 02:45 PM
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Squandering The Hispanic Vote: An Open Letter To The GOP</span>
JorgeRamos.com (http://jorgeramos.com/en/squandering-the-hispanic-vote-an-open-letter-to-the-gop/)

http://www.panoramadiario.com/uploads/pics/jorge_ramos.jpg

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style='font-family: Times New Roman'>It’s unlikely you will enjoy hearing this news (just as the Democrats probably won’t like the letter that I’ll write to them next week). Still, I thought we should clear up a few things before your convention begins in Florida on Aug. 27.

The Hispanic community is going to cast millions of ballots for President Barack Obama in November, many more than they will cast for Mitt Romney, which may swing the election toward a Democratic win. But that’s not the worst news: Unless your party changes its unreasonable anti-immigrant stance, your party will likely be shut out of the White House for generations.

A survey conducted in July by the political research firm Latino Decisions showed that 70 percent of Hispanic voters intend to vote for Obama in the coming presidential election, while only 22 percent expressed support for Romney. The results of other national surveys are very similar. Unfortunately for Republicans, winning the Hispanic vote is more crucial to victory than they seem to recognize.

One exception was President George W. Bush. Of course, when Bush moved out of the White House after two terms, he left behind an imploding economy and an expensive, unnecessary war in Iraq, but he also understood the electoral value of the Hispanic vote.

Thirty-five percent of Hispanic voters cast their ballots in his favor in 2000, and this number increased in 2004 to 44 percent — the highest percentage won by a Republican candidate in decades. Why? Because Bush had reached out to Hispanics. Then in 2007, he followed up by pushing through legislation that offered a real path to legalization for undocumented immigrants– but it was Bush’s fellow Republicans who defeated the bill in Congress.

Hispanic voters have not forgotten this.

Rather than picking up where Bush left off, Romney and fellow Republicans have decided to take a big step backward and oppose any effort at legalization.

In fact, Romney has suggested that life in the U.S. could be made so intolerable for undocumented residents that they will choose, as he has put it in interviews and past debates, “self-deportation.” I assure you, dear Republicans, that Hispanic voters will not forget this either.

We will never forget that the GOP supported the passage of terrible anti-immigrant laws in Arizona, Alabama and Georgia, nor that you backed the actions of Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., who is now being sued by the Justice Department for allegedly engaging in policing practices that singled out Hispanics.

From the Hispanic perspective, Republicans have made one bad decision after another. For instance, the party could have capitalized on Obama’s failure to fulfill a campaign promise to introduce immigration reform legislation in Congress within his administration’s first year. But you chose not to.

Your staunch opposition to the Dream Act is another example. It is nonsensical to deny undocumented people brought here by their parents as children the opportunity to become citizens, and then use the importance of maintaining a secure border with Mexico as an excuse. These “Dreamers” — more than 2 million young men and women — are already established in the United States. They have been forced to live in the shadows for years through no fault of their own; they have studied and graduated from American public schools; they stand ready to make a positive, lasting contribution to our country. Yet your party refuses to do anything to help them.

And many within the party often praise President Ronald Reagan, who knew that the Hispanic community’s traditional mores are very similar to those held by the GOP: against big government, against abortion and in favor of preserving traditional family values. But unlike Reagan, who oversaw the approval of an amnesty law for undocumented immigrants in 1986, today’s Republicans have
squandered a golden opportunity by casting the undocumented, and, consequently, many Hispanics, as the enemy. (By the way, Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, your vice presidential hopeful, isn’t doing you any favors. Not only does he oppose the Dream Act and creating a path to legalization, but his flip-flopping views
on the Cuban trade embargo could cause you to lose some votes from Cuban-Americans. A pity.)

Of course, as is the case with any segment of the electorate, issues regarding the economy, education and access to the health care are more important to Hispanic voters than immigration, according to many polls. Yet this issue defines who is against us. And in many states, you have overwhelmingly chosen anti-immigrant positions.

So, Republicans, you are going to lose the Hispanic vote this year, and you have done everything in your power to bring about that outcome. Now the question is: How are you going to avoid losing the White House for generations?

By Jorge Ramos Avalos

(Agust 21, 2012)
</span></span>
About the Author: (From Wikipedia)

Jorge Ramos has won eight Emmy Awards and the Maria Moors Cabot Award for excellence in journalism.

He has been the anchorman for Univision News since 1986 and has appeared on NBC's Today, CNN's Talk Back Live, ABC's Nightline, CBS's Early Show, and Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor, among others.

He is the bestselling author of No Borders: A Journalist's Search for Home and Dying to Cross.

He lives in Florida.[1]

Ramos joined Univision, Telemundo, Fox Sports, ESPN Deportes, and many others in 1985.

He has interviewed multiple world leaders including Fidel Castro, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Evo Morales, Hugo Chávez, Terry Porter, Rafael Correa, Fernando Ferrer, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and many others.

Ramos started working at a radio station in Mexico City. However, he left his country (Mexico) when the biggest Mexican television network censored a report he had made. Looking for another way of life, he immigrated to the U.S.

He came to the United States with a student visa in 1983. The first job he took was waiting tables. Finally, in 1984, he received the opportunity to join an affiliate of Univision in Los Angeles. Two years later, he became the morning host for the show "Mundo Latino".

He became one of the youngest national anchormen in the history of American television at the age of 28, in November 1986. Since this happened, he has been called the "voice of the voiceless"[citation needed] for other immigrants such as himself.

Ramos attended the Universidad Iberoamericana in México City where he majored in Communication. He then received his Master's degree in International Studies from the University of Miami.

He works alongside Univision colleagues María Elena Salinas.

On February 21, 2008, he represented Univision in a Democratic debate between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on The University of Texas at Austin campus.

The February 23, 2008 telecast of Saturday Night Live featured Will Forte impersonating Ramos in a Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama debate sketch, in which he is portrayed as an "Obama Stalker".
He appeared on the Comedy Central show Colbert Report on August 11, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Ramos_(news_anchor)

eg8r
08-26-2012, 06:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unless your party changes its unreasonable anti-immigrant stance, </div></div>Why does the author choose this type of lying language. The Rep party does not have any anti-immigrant stance. They are anti-illegal-immigrant but maybe the author doesn't understand the difference.

eg8r

LWW
08-26-2012, 06:03 PM
Demokrooks would walk around the block to embrace a lie when te truth is standing in front of them.

Qtec
08-26-2012, 06:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unless your party changes its unreasonable anti-immigrant stance, </div></div>Why does the author choose this type of lying language. The Rep party does not have any anti-immigrant stance. They are anti-illegal-immigrant but maybe the author doesn't understand the difference.

eg8r </div></div>

Semantics!
What people do you think the author was talking about?
Is there a problem with legal immigrants?


Q

Q

DiabloViejo
08-26-2012, 06:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Demokrooks would walk around the block to embrace a lie when te truth is standing in front of them. </div></div>

Pray tell, what parts of the article are untrue and what factual data do you have to support your contention? BTW, I wasn't aware that you and eg8r are Hispanics, so where do you get off speaking for a group that you know precious little about? Really? You are going to tell Hispanics what they should think? Good luck with that! Not that it matters, your side has lost the Hispanic vote and them's the facts jack. Keep up the good work!

eg8r
08-26-2012, 07:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Semantics!
What people do you think the author was talking about? </div></div>Semantics? Are you out of your freaking mind. They are two totally different things. It is a flat out lie.

As far as your last question I have no seen any stance from the Reps or Dems that would be against legal immigrants. We don't have a problem with people who do things legally.

eg8r

eg8r
08-26-2012, 07:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pray tell, what parts of the article are untrue and what factual data do you have to support your contention?</div></div>Why don't you start with the lie quoted from your article that has already been identified?

eg8r

DiabloViejo
08-26-2012, 10:45 PM
Au contraire, you guys made the claim...so it's up to you to point out the specific 'lie' you are referring to. Don't be coy, just man up and state what and where, and why it's a lie, and provide factual evidence to support your claim, that's all. Sh*t or get off the pot. Is that asking too much from either of you Bozos? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Not that it matters much anyway since as I've already pointed out, your party has lost the Hispanic vote. Got that? Hasta la vista, Adios, Hasta luego. BTW, the GOP is also polling very badly among women, African-Americans, and Independents, so go ahead and stick your heads into the sand and pretend that everything is going splendidly well, but come November we will see if those lost votes mattered or not. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
08-27-2012, 12:04 AM
Racial profiling is against the law, regardless of a persons status.

Republicans ignore our Constitutional Laws, evenstare decisis. They have no respect for our laws.

Republicans are not going to get the Hispanic votes, nor the womens' votes, and even Mitsey's magic panties aren't going to help! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

eg8r
08-27-2012, 05:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Au contraire, you guys made the claim...so it's up to you to point out the specific 'lie' you are referring to.</div></div>I already did point out the specific lie.

eg8r

Qtec
08-27-2012, 06:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Semantics!
What people do you think the author was talking about? </div></div>Semantics? Are you out of your freaking mind. They are two totally different things. It is a flat out lie.

As far as your last question I have no seen any stance from the Reps or Dems that would be against legal immigrants. We don't have a problem with people who do things legally.

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact, Romney has suggested that life in the U.S. could be made so intolerable for <span style='font-size: 23pt'>undocumented residents </span></div></div> or as you would call them, illegal aliens. ie semantics.

Q

eg8r
08-27-2012, 07:45 AM
Sorry but now you are choosing to completely ignore the text that I quoted. It was not semantics at all. The text that I quoted from the article was a blatant lie. The Reps and Romney have nothing against legal immigrants.

eg8r

LWW
08-27-2012, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry but now you are choosing to completely ignore the text that I quoted. It was not semantics at all. The text that I quoted from the article was a blatant lie. The Reps and Romney have nothing against legal immigrants.

eg8r </div></div>

Once again you have set the bar far too high for Snoopy.

DiabloViejo
08-27-2012, 12:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Au contraire, you guys made the claim...so it's up to you to point out the specific 'lie' you are referring to.</div></div>I already did point out the specific lie.

eg8r </div></div>

Gee, I must have missed it. But I'm sure you're a gentleman and are always willing to help...so why don't you just humor me and post it again?

Oh and Ed, please do be a sport and include some credible evidence of it (whatever <u>it</u> is), in fact, being a lie.

Thank you in advance for your expected cooperation.

eg8r
08-27-2012, 01:15 PM
Why not just put on your big boy panties and search through the thread all by yourself and see if you can find it. Including this post there are only a total of 6 so going by what I have seen you post in the past that should take you no more than an hour or so to accomplish. I am sorry I did not drop it down to the kindergarten level for you and provide pictures but by golly, I think you might be able to figure it out.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-27-2012, 01:42 PM
The 'papers, please' Arizona law that the RNC just put a form of into its platform most definitely puts legal immigrants, naturalized Americans who were immigrants, and native-born Americans who come from immigrant stock, squarely under law enforcement harassment.

As with that poor young woman recently, who after providing her legal birth certificate, was STILL jailed for WEEKS (iirc), despite being a citizen of these United States.

LWW
08-27-2012, 01:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 'papers, please' Arizona law that the RNC just put a form of into its platform most definitely puts legal immigrants, naturalized Americans who were immigrants, and native-born Americans who come from immigrant stock, squarely under law enforcement harassment.
</div></div>

That is a spoon fed party lie.

What Az did was allow LEO's to enforce federl law, eventhough the feds would not.

eg8r
08-27-2012, 02:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 'papers, please' Arizona law that the RNC just put a form of into its platform most definitely puts legal immigrants, naturalized Americans who were immigrants, and native-born Americans who come from immigrant stock, squarely under law enforcement harassment.
</div></div>Thanks for proving me correct. When I get pulled over by a cop for speeding he asks for my driver's license and that sure is not harrassment. Neither is asking someone for their "papers" if they were caught in a traffic accident.

eg8r

DiabloViejo
08-27-2012, 02:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why not just put on your big boy panties and search through the thread all by yourself and see if you can find it. Including this post there are only a total of 6 so going by what I have seen you post in the past that should take you no more than an hour or so to accomplish. I am sorry I did not drop it down to the kindergarten level for you and provide pictures but by golly, I think you might be able to figure it out.

eg8r </div></div>

Edgar old chap, I am shocked, shocked, at your unwillingness to reply to such a simple request. I can only attribute it to your being presently engaged in a hunt for a Florida swamp unicorn.
Perhaps once you've found your trophy unicorn, you will be able to present to us the elusive 'lie' of which you speak and facts to back up your claim. Perhaps you could also send us a pic of the unicorn while you are it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Soflasnapper
08-27-2012, 02:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 'papers, please' Arizona law that the RNC just put a form of into its platform most definitely puts legal immigrants, naturalized Americans who were immigrants, and native-born Americans who come from immigrant stock, squarely under law enforcement harassment.
</div></div>Thanks for proving me correct. When I get pulled over by a cop for speeding he asks for my driver's license and that sure is not harrassment. Neither is asking someone for their "papers" if they were caught in a traffic accident.

eg8r </div></div>

ANY lawful engagement of a LEO and a person may result in a demand for papers proving citizenship, and that includes being simply a witness to an accident from a bystander position, not involved except as a witness.

You would almost certainly not be asked to show this if you were being interviewed as a witness bystander.

That also includes a LEO chatting up some guys on the street corner doing nothing, and suspected of nothing, with no probable cause for anything. Anytime there is any contact, this becomes de riguer policy, subject to allowing a citizen to file a lawsuit against the state or county or city department, despite the long-standing sovereign immunity from that, if the LEO does NOT do this.

Even Judge Napolitano agrees with me on this, stating that if he wore casual clothes and grew a week's beard, he could easily be subjected to such a random and unpredicated demand, simply because he looks of possibly foreign origin.

Here's a summary from a recent Arizona case:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Aug 14 2012
Authorities Jail Legal U.S. Citizen Because They Didn't Feel Like Checking Her Birth Certificate

Briseira Torres was kept in jail for four and a half months after authorities WRONGLY suspected her of being in the U.S. illegally. They didn't bother to check her long-form birth certificate, which would have immediately exonerated her. She was unable to take care of her 14-year-old daughter and lost both her house and her car. What a great system we have here, huh?</div></div>

llotter
08-27-2012, 03:24 PM
Mr. Ramos is an idiot and should be deported as a trouble maker. The Democrats are so used to breaking the laws they can't change that the Rule of Law has become just an temporary inconvenience. Ignore the Law and the border and America becomes another Somalia and the illegals, and their Democrat enablers, destroy what they truly wanted most, a free and civil society.

DiabloViejo
08-27-2012, 06:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Ramos is an idiot and should be deported as a trouble maker. The Democrats are so used to breaking the laws they can't change that the Rule of Law has become just an temporary inconvenience. Ignore the Law and the border and America becomes another Somalia and the illegals, and their Democrat enablers, destroy what they truly wanted most, a free and civil society. </div></div>

You're an idiot for suggesting that an American citizen should be deported. You are also an idiot for supporting domestic terrorism. And lastly you are an idiot for your thinly disguised bigotry masquerading as support for law and order.

Gayle in MD
08-27-2012, 10:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Ramos is an idiot and should be deported as a trouble maker. The Democrats are so used to breaking the laws they can't change that the Rule of Law has become just an temporary inconvenience. Ignore the Law and the border and America becomes another Somalia and the illegals, and their Democrat enablers, destroy what they truly wanted most, a free and civil society. </div></div>

You're an idiot for suggesting that an American citizen should be deported. You are also an idiot for supporting domestic terrorism. And lastly you are an idiot for your thinly disguised bigotry masquerading as support for law and order. </div></div>

Tap Tap Tap!!!

Excellent summary!

G.

eg8r
08-28-2012, 08:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ANY lawful engagement of a LEO and a person may result in a demand for papers proving citizenship, and that includes being simply a witness to an accident from a bystander position, not involved except as a witness.

You would almost certainly not be asked to show this if you were being interviewed as a witness bystander.

</div></div>I will have to take your word since I have never been questioned by a police officer as a witness.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That also includes a LEO chatting up some guys on the street corner doing nothing, and suspected of nothing, with no probable cause for anything.</div></div>This example doesn't sound the least bit like "lawful engagement". Is there a definition of lawful engagement?

You continue to show the same example of this police abuse of the system. If it really was as bad as you make it sound then it would be happening all the time. Just talking to people and tossing them in jail. I agree that this one instance that you continue to show is an abuse of power but is it something that goes on regularly? Has it happened since? I really have no idea but it absolutely DOES NOT prove that the Reps are anti-immigrant or have an anti-immigrant policy. All you have proven is that the law in place is not being enforced to actually do what it is supposed to do which clearly is to remove all ILLEGAL immigrants.

eg8r