• Your cart is currently empty.
Latina Lista: News from the Latinx perspective > Palabra Final > Politics > If Obama wants the Latino vote, three goals must be included in his campaign strategy

If Obama wants the Latino vote, three goals must be included in his campaign strategy

LatinaLista — A new Gallup report reveals that when it comes to a showdown between Obama and McCain, McCain is the one with the “Latino problem.”
' border=
(Source: Gallup)

While Clinton is considered the candidate who was able to attract more Latino voters, than even Latino New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Obama has always had his share of Latino voters. They just didn’t match the numbers of Clinton’s Hispanic supporters.
And now that Clinton is ending her campaign, it is obvious that she is leveraging those Latino supporters, who are among the now infamous “18 million” who voted for her, in securing her future role in an Obama Administration.
It would seem from the Gallup poll that Clinton can’t count on leveraging too much from her Hispanic supporters because some are already switching their allegiance to Obama, but it won’t be enough.


And it is highly unlikely that just because Clinton says, “Ok, vote for Obama because I’m endorsing him now,” that those Latino supporters in Southwest Texas, Nevada, California, etc. will just automatically put Obama signs in their yards or sport Vote Obama buttons.
Why?
Because Latino culture doesn’t work like that. A person has to earn respect, and in this case, votes. But it’s not his track recored in Congress or his work in Illinois or the number of superdelegates he has that will sway hardfast Latino Hillary supporters.
No. Earning respect, in this case, means you shake their hand, you walk their neighborhoods. You go cara-a-cara (face-to-face).
If Obama thought the hard part of his campaigning was over then he has no idea how to connect with Latino voters who live in the rural parts of the country — away from the urban centers that were his traditional winning bases.
The personal touch takes a whole new meaning when it comes to dealing with Latino voters. Clinton understood that.
If Obama wants Clinton’s Latino supporters, there’s a number of things he must do:

1. Start putting in some real face time in the Southwest and other parts of the country where there are heavy Latino communities.
2. Take lessons from Clinton’s campaign and construct an outreach program that just didn’t issue press releases but developed relationships with Latino bloggers and media.
3. And most of all, prominently include Latino leadership within your campaign to make the electorate feel like their voices are being represented which can reach your ear.

Obama already has a headstart over McCain when it comes to the Latino vote, but as recent history has shown us, headstarts don’t mean a damn thing when it comes to who finishes first.

Related posts

Comment(35)

  • Avatar
    Frank
    June 5, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    How about some town hall meetings where Obama can talk to ALL Americans together?

  • Avatar
    laura
    June 6, 2008 at 8:58 am

    Marisa, I am very disappointed in your “3 things Obama must do.”
    Are we supposed to vote for someone because they show up and spend money on targeted ads? How about some specific goals we need to make Latina/o’s lives better? What about the excrutiating pain that millions of Latina/os are suffering this moment because of how their loved ones are being hunted like terrorists, or like animals?
    What use is “prominently include Latino leadership” except as a jobs program for some ambitious Latina/os? Having Latina/os in well-paid, fancy jobs does nothing unless the Obama platform includes very specific changes he intends to make – like a moratorium on ICE raids; comprehensive immigration reform in the first 100 days; healthcare for everyone ?
    I agree that just issuing press releases, or making vague sympathetic noises to Latina/os, as Obama has been doing, is not enough.
    But I would like to have a debate on which 3 (or 7, or 10) specific goals Obama must sets himself to relieve the awful suffering of Latina/os, and to make our lives – together with the lives of all non-superrich Americans – better. Like everyone else, we need security, dignity, and opportunity. Let’s discuss what that means specifically for each of us, present these goals to the Obama campaign, and see how he responds.

  • Avatar
    Daniel
    June 6, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    wey: “How about some town hall meetings where Obama can talk to ALL Americans together?”
    nope. you call our infants “anchor” babies.
    you say our mothers abandon their children when the gestapo carts them away.
    while everything you enjoy is a cheap affordable price that even you can afford, because of us.
    also, when minorities
    wey: “How about some town hall meetings where Obama can talk to ALL Americans together?”
    this is code for pandering to white europeans.
    by default, whites get “pandered” to while everyone else is INTENTIONALLY left out of the loop.
    politicians need to stop pandering to ethnic euros ONLY!!!

  • Avatar
    Marisa Treviño
    June 6, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    Laura, I am suggesting strategies for the Obama campaign to undertake to reach out to Latinos. To be honest, paying lip service to issues are what all candidates do. John McCain has already started. What better test to show a sincerity in addressing issues important to Latinos than including us in his campaign and reaching out to the community in a meaningful way? I think we have to face the fact that Obama, as any candidate, will go so far in addressing the issues you mentioned simply because he has to be realistic in that he has to appeal to all voters and not just Latinos. I think it’s a much smarter strategy on our part to get our foot in the door and then work towards the kind of change we envision.

  • Avatar
    Daniel
    June 6, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    ugh,
    sorry too many browsers. im trading western refinery- hurricanes are coming :0

  • Avatar
    Frank
    June 6, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    wey: “How about some town hall meetings where Obama can talk to ALL Americans together?”
    “nope. you call our infants “anchor” babies.”
    Wrong! Only children of illegal aliens get called “anchor babies”, not legal Hispanic citizen’s babies. Since only citizens can vote. Only citizens need attend a town hall meeting.
    “you say our mothers abandon their children when the gestapo carts them away.”
    Maybe “some” do but what has that to do with holding a town hall meeting for all Americans? I know of no “gestapo carts” in this country.
    “while everything you enjoy is a cheap affordable price that even you can afford, because of us.”
    Wrong! The social costs of illegal aliens get passed on to the American taxpayer and the greedy employers pocket the profit from cheap illegal labor. Who is “us”? Are you an illegal alien?
    “also, when minorities”?
    “wey: “How about some town hall meetings where Obama can talk to ALL Americans together?”
    “this is code for pandering to white europeans.”
    What a joke! I know of no other ethnic group that gets pandered to like Latinos do by our politicians. Who is “wey” and if you are Latino you are also part White European.
    “by default, whites get “pandered” to while everyone else is INTENTIONALLY left out of the loop.”
    Again, you must be joking. I know of no other ethnic group that gets pandered to like Latinos do by our politicians.
    “politicians need to stop pandering to ethnic euros ONLY!!!”
    See above. Latinos get pandered to more than anyone else in this country.

  • Avatar
    Horace
    June 6, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    “What use is “prominently include Latino leadership” except as a jobs program for some ambitious Latina/os? Having Latina/os in well-paid, fancy jobs does nothing unless the Obama platform includes very specific changes he intends to make – like a moratorium on ICE raids; comprehensive immigration reform in the first 100 days; healthcare for everyone ?’
    The problem with a moritorium on ICE raids is that, as president, he would be sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. Laura, you’re naive to believe that the law is the president’s to ignore. Immigration law, in spite of your attempt at nullifying it, is the law of the people. This is a democracy and only the people’s will governs the validity of the immigration laws, and apparently they’re not in any hurry to change it. Only Congress can change the law, in spite of idiotic ethocentric rhetoric that it should be ignored. Forget about the identity theft and all the lies and cheating illegal aliens commit in the name of employment? Never!

  • Avatar
    Baja Pantis
    June 6, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    the purpose of a politician is to get us all so high on hope that we dont notice theyre just going to bend us over for another four years.
    now that La Pantsuit is gone, i feel like i’m picking my poison all over again.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    June 7, 2008 at 4:15 am

    After all the racist’s lies here is the truth.
    Defending the Unwelcome Stranger
    The Truth About Immigration
    by Tim Wise
    If not suspected of terrorism, being an immigrant is to be suspected of laziness, taking advantage of welfare programs, overburdening social services and health care facilities, lowering the quality of education with demands for bilingual instruction, or even worse, driving the drug trade and contributing heavily to the nation’s crime problem.
    But as with the overreaction to Arabs and Muslims so prevalent after September 11th, so too are the stereotypes, fears, and assumptions about immigrants from Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa and Asia false. When subjected to scrutiny, the reactionary ravings of white supremacist groups and even mainstream conservatives are shown to be wholly unsupported.
    In this time of renewed Nativist impulses, perhaps we would do well to revisit some of the more traditional anti-immigrant rhetoric, so as to demonstrate the fallacies that permeate the discourse and restore some sanity, not to mention accuracy to the debate over this important issue.
    To begin with, the supposed “alien invasion” has been greatly exaggerated. A recent study by demographers in the U.S. and Mexico City found that the numbers of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. is only about 105,000 per year, as opposed to the millions claimed by anti-immigrant forces.
    Other estimates place the total number of undocumented entrants into the U.S. at no more than 300,000 annually—even then a far cry from the proclamations of anti-immigrant groups. What’s more, the population of undocumented entrants into the U.S. has remained constant as a share of the national population for over two decades, at no more than two percent.
    Myths about Immigrants,
    Welfare, and the Economy
    s for immigrant use of welfare benefits, undocumented workers and their families are not eligible for cash welfare or food stamps. They are only eligible for emergency medical assistance, prenatal care and educational benefits, all of which are considered worth providing so as to reduce health emergencies, epidemics and the social problems associated with lack of schooling.
    Excluding emergency refugees (who are eligible for several types of assistance in virtually any country to which they escape), recent immigrants receive almost no public aid.
    Contrary to common perception, today’s immigrants (largely of color) are actually less likely to receive assistance than were the European immigrants of the early 1900s. Over half of all welfare recipients in 1909 were immigrants, and these immigrants were three times more likely to receive assistance than the native-born.
    As for the cost of immigration to the public sector, rather than draining taxpayer coffers, immigrants actually contribute positively to the economic health of the United States; indeed, recent immigrants create a net surplus to the public sector of nearly $30 billion annually, according to the Urban Institute.
    Data from New York State—with the second largest immigrant population in the nation—shows that the foreign born population there pays about $18 billion in taxes each year, with a per capita tax payment that is hardly distinguishable from their native born counterparts. Even those immigrants who are in New York illegally (only 16% of immigrants in the state) pay over $1 billion annually in taxes.
    In California—home to 43% of illegal immigrants in the U.S.—undocumented workers contribute approximately seven percent of the state’s economic product: roughly $63 billion annually. According to a study by researchers at UCLA, the gross economic contribution by each illegal immigrant to the economy of California was nearly $45,000 per year.
    Given that the average undocumented worker receives very low wages—typically less than $10,000 annually—this means that even with paltry social service benefits available to these immigrants, the net transfer of income is exactly the opposite of that implied by immigrant bashers. Instead of the state and nation subsidizing immigrants, it is more accurate to say that immigrants subsidize the economy and the companies for which they work by performing low-wage labor that is worth at least four times more, on average, than what they earn from income and welfare combined.
    The study most often cited to “prove” the high cost of immigrants relative to the taxes they pay was conducted by Donald Huddle, of Rice University, on behalf of the anti-immigration group, Carrying Capacity Network. Yet further analysis of the Huddle study by researchers at the Urban Institute revealed several flaws which undermine its conclusions.
    While Huddle claimed that immigrants cost U.S. public coffers $42 billion annually, this number was arrived at through a terribly flawed methodology. First, Huddle was basing his claims on one study of Los Angeles County, which he then extrapolated to the nation as a whole, despite significant differences in the costs associated with immigration in different parts of the country, and the different incomes earned by immigrants across the nation. Indeed, Huddle’s underestimation of immigrant income was so extreme, that he miscalculated the amount of taxes paid by these immigrants by roughly $21.3 billion.
    Then, by ignoring altogether the FICA taxes (Social Security), unemployment insurance taxes, and gasoline taxes paid by immigrants, Huddle further underestimated the tax payments of immigrants by an additional $29 billion. These two mistakes alone (and there were others) torpedo Huddle’s conclusion—that immigrants are a net drain on the nation’s economy—by indicating that taxes paid by immigrants are higher than the amount they cost the country in public expenditures.
    The Real Parasites
    f course there is a bitter irony in the claim that immigrants seek to take advantage of the U.S. welfare system; namely, if anything, it is U.S. corporations whose desire to take advantage of trade agreements and labor in exploited nations has led to the flow of immigrants to the U.S. in the first place.
    For example, as a result of trade agreements that open up Mexico and Latin America for U.S. corporate penetration, companies have moved south of the border in search of low-wage labor and intent on developing markets for exports, especially in agriculture. As a result of the shift from local subsistence farming to profit-oriented corporate agriculture, Mexican peasants are driven off the land, at which time they head for Mexican cities in search of jobs. But the lack of jobs in the cities and large pool of unemployed labor there—which allows employers to drive down wages since workers are desperate—then results in a stream of workers from the Mexican cities into the United States.
    Current research estimates that over 300,000 Mexican farm workers have lost their jobs due to NAFTA, thereby fueling the desperate rush for the U.S. border in search of subsistence. In fact, if anyone is taking advantage or “sponging” off of others, it is the American corporations who run to Mexico where low wages and non-existent environmental laws allow them to save as much as $25,000 per worker compared to what they would have to pay in the United States.
    Myths About Immigration and Crime
    s for criminality, it appears that immigrants only pick up these bad habits after being in the country a while. A study at the University of North Carolina found that it is only after immigrant families become more “Americanized” that they experience dramatic increases in drug use, weapons use, violence and sexual promiscuity.
    Indeed, Mexican immigrants have drug abuse rates that are only half as high as their U.S.-born, Mexican American counterparts, indicating that it is acculturation and Americanization, not immigration, which presents the larger problem. Studies have found that immigrants nearly always exhibit lower crime rates than native-born persons, and there is simply no evidence to indicate that as immigrants move into an area crime goes up.
    Evidence from Miami—a large city with a substantial number and percentage of Latino and Caribbean immigrants, and the largest percentage of Latino residents of any large county in the U.S.—indicates how flawed the “immigration brings more crime” argument really is. Despite the city’s large presence of immigrants, the fact remains that Cubans, Jamaicans, and Haitians are actually less likely to be involved in homicides than the native-born, and as the rate of Latino immigration to Miami increased in the 1980s, the murder rate there actually declined.
    Haitian immigrants, in fact, typically commit murder less often than whites and have the lowest rate of homicides of any ethnic group in Miami. Likewise, there are no significant differences in the rates of homicides between Latinos and whites in Miami. While it is true that Miami led the nation in terms of its homicide rate throughout most of the 1980s, this was also the case in the late 1940s and early 1950s, long before the immigration explosion that would transform the town in more recent decades.
    Dreaming of a White Nation
    ltimately, however, the battle over immigration is not about money, welfare programs, language or crime: it is about the desire by a large segment of the U.S. citizenry to define what it means to be an “American” in explicitly racial terms. Not only do such persons fail to recognize America as a continent, which includes the very dark-skinned neighbors to the South they so fear, but they also fail to conceive of the U.S. as anything less than a white nation.
    Of course, such a racialized conception of the United States is intriguing, precisely because this country, unlike many others, has long been a multiracial, multicultural land, which would be unrecognizable as the nation it is today but for the contributions of people of color from distant and not so distant shores.
    From the beginning of conquest and colonization of the Americas, the land that is now the U.S. was always multiracial. Not only were there millions of indigenous American Indians, representing over two hundred separate nations, but the numbers of African slaves often equaled or even surpassed the numbers of “free whites” in many communities, particularly in the south.
    Until the massive increase in European immigration beginning in the mid-1800s and lasting until the 1920s, people of color were a substantial portion of the population: in many communities as much as a third or more. Only by changing the inherent makeup of United States demography via “white” migration did the U.S. become 90% white in the 1950s.
    In the final analysis, none of the claims made by conservatives to inveigh against immigration hold up to scrutiny: immigrants are no more and perhaps less likely to receive public assistance than the native-born; they are no more and often less likely to engage in serious criminal activity; and ultimately, their desire to live in the U.S.—especially given the anti-immigrant backlash of recent years—is testament to nothing so much as their desire to take advantage of the greater opportunities still available here, relative to the places from whence they come.

  • Avatar
    laura
    June 7, 2008 at 10:58 am

    Marisa, you say, “I think it’s a much smarter strategy on our part to get our foot in the door and then work towards the kind of change we envision,” because Obama needs to address the concerns of all voters, not just Latina/os.
    I don’t disagree with that. I agree that reaching out to Latina/os, and listening, are very important first steps.
    But I think we need very specific demands, very specific goals. As you say, politics is a pull/push game. But if we don’t push, no one will do it for us.
    I propose as goals, again:
    1. moratorium on the ICE raids, NOW
    2. comprehensive immigration reform in the first 100 days
    3. health care for everyone.
    As you imply, there are plenty of Americans who take their interpretation of the world and of their life from Lou Dobbs. Thinking and understanding are such hard jobs that of course it is easiest to go with what you get told on TV every night. If it’s on TV, there must be some truth to it, right?
    So plenty of Americans scream “Deport them.”
    If we don’t push back, the loudest noise will prevail. That is why getting Latina/os into prominent campaign positions is not sufficient.
    Marisa, Daniel, Baja Pantis: what are the specific goals – goals that can be implemented by presidential executive order, or by acts of Congress – that feel most urgent to you? What is YOUR goal 1, goal 2, goal 3?

  • Avatar
    Daniel
    June 7, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Laura: “what are the specific goals – goals that can be implemented by presidential executive order, or by acts of Congress – that feel most urgent to you?”
    I actually have three sets of goals i.e. long, short and intermediate term.
    Short term goals:
    1, An immediate general amnesty for all undocs currently in the U.S. and those that have been victimized by ICE.
    2, More work visas and an overhaul of the current system used to dole them out – must include a “path to citizenship” for all law abiding workers who have laid down roots here (homeowners and some type of fair equivalent for renters).
    3, The elimination of employer/worker sanctions, fines or penalties.
    Laura, I am a good friend of Dr. Armando Navarro, UCR (google him). He told me about 4 years ago that the gov was going to make undocumented workers like drugs – a form of contraband, if you will. We have seen since then that this has indeed turned out to be true.
    Employers who fulfill a LEGAL demand should not be burdened with extra government (puke) bureaucracy or forced to become government enforcers of laws most do not believe in.
    -Daniel

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    June 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    The term ‘anchor baby’ is racist. Those who stated they never, never ever used racist remarks lied…..again. They admit they call hispanic babies ‘anchor babies.
    ‘Anchor babies’ is hate speech Commentary | Thursday, August 23, 2007 7:42 PM PDT ∞
    North County Times readers can’t find an article that uses the infamous N-word, the Q-word (queer) or words like “homo” for homosexual.
    What they find is the use of the words “anchor babies” in letters or Opinion pieces.
    “Anchor babies” are words used by extremists to define babies born of illegal alien parents in the United States.
    Most of these children are born to Mexican parents illegally in the United States. Shamefully, the anti-illegal alien cohort also applies the term to any Mexican-American regardless of the legality of one or both parents, grandparents or great-grandparents.
    Example: Janet Osborn’s letter (Aug. 23). She labels all with Spanish surnames “anchor babies.” doesn’t say how many (Latinos in prison who are not illegals) are anchor babies, grown up and taught to break our laws by their illegal parents … after all, they broke our law coming here illegally and snub their noses at it.”
    Talk about a broad brush. Most such children have no idea their parents are illegally present. The law parents broke is a misdemeanor administrative law, as is talking on a cell phone in court.
    Why should natural-born United States citizens be insulted with “anchor babies”?
    These children are natural-born United States citizens. They are because the Constitution of the United States says so, and says so unequivocally. Those who use “anchor babies” are ignorant of the Constitution or can’t read and understand it or reject it for specious reasons.
    The 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
    Critics maintain the 14th Amendment (1868) applied only to Negro slaves (the last of whom learned of their emancipation in 1865) and their descendants. The Supreme Court took a different view in the 1870s “Slaughterhouse” cases, in which it declared that laws apply to all —- not just special people. “All persons” means just that, all persons.

  • Avatar
    Daniel
    June 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Evelyn: “Anchor babies’ is hate speech…”
    This is true.
    People who use this term are attempting to peg citizenship to the legal status of the mother and/or father. If this continues, they will soon peg citizenship the race/ethnicity of the parents.
    Anyone using the term anchor baby to describe an “American” born infant is really bottom fishing.
    Fortunately, the types that use this term are unimportant.

  • Avatar
    Frank
    June 7, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    The term “anchor baby” is only seen as racist by the pro-illegals. Just because they say so, doesn’t make it so! The term was formulated to denote how parents here illegally “anchor” THEMSELVES unto our country by giving birth on our soil. That is all it means! Nothing racist in it! How can it be racist when it applies to ALL illegal alien parents and not just one ethnic group? It would be a good idea for someone to look up the word racism or racist before tossing it around at every turn. Describing what illegal aliens hope to achieve by giving birth on our soil is not a racist term.
    These illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction but the jurisdiction of their own homelands when deciphering it in the wording of the 14th Amendment.

  • Avatar
    Irma
    June 7, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    Barak Obamas USA is white and black.
    Latins, Asians, Arabs etc all fall into the other. He wants our vote but has given us
    squat.
    What do I want ?
    1. Clinton health care plan
    and I want Clinton to be in charge of
    passing through Congress and I want
    her to GET the credit.
    2. Immigration : I want the fence torn down.
    I want amnesty for all parents of US citizen who are here illegally.
    3. Cabinet: I want half of it to be women and some of them to be Latinas.
    4. Iraq – I want a promise that he
    will visit Iraq every 4 months until we are out.
    5. Supreme Court : I want a Latino/a
    appointed as the next Supreme court Justice.
    6. If Hilary Clinton is not the VP, I want him to basically say that she will
    the Secretary of State.
    He wont do any of that . So , it is likely
    he wont get my vote.

  • Avatar
    veronica
    June 7, 2008 at 7:03 pm

    si! si!

  • Avatar
    Horace
    June 7, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    “The term ‘anchor baby’ is racist. Those who stated they never, never ever used racist remarks lied…..again. They admit they call hispanic babies ‘anchor babies.”
    I’ve looked “anchor babies” up in the dictionary and nowhere does it refer to race or ethnicity, so I suspect that you are lying once more, Evelyn. It simply means children who are exploited for their ability to be used as leverage to gain residency for their parents. How ethical can that be?

  • Avatar
    Daniel
    June 7, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    Irma: “1. Clinton health care plan
    and I want Clinton to be in charge of
    passing through Congress and I want
    her to GET the credit.”
    What we need is more competition is health care providers and insurance companies.
    I have my own insurance since Ive been self employed most my life.
    I know lots of adult men and women alike that earn well over 70-90k year and they have their own health insurance.
    They dont want to be forced to purchase from one of the government’s choices.
    Plus, HC said she would garnish wages if she had to to make sure everyone was insured.
    That’s too heavy handed for me.
    I understand their are single mothers out there with with kids and they cannot afford health insurance.
    But what’s good for them isn’t necessarily good for everyone else.
    The industry needs increased competition in order to lower rates, offer more affordable products and choices.
    So far, I think McCain has the best plan for my family.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    June 8, 2008 at 1:39 am

    So that would mean you and I and all white people with Euro lineage, including your children and mine are anchor babies? Ohh OK!
    I was having trouble understanding how it referred to hispanics being they are indigenous to these lands They are America, of this continent. They dont need to anchor themselves to America.
    Gee thanks for pointing that out. We are not only unethical. It’s a good thing we were able to kill off most of the indigenous.
    Imagine if they were still alive. We wouldn’t be able to keep having babies to gain leverage to keep our residency in these lands we stole.
    Hay, who you callin an illegal alien….PILGRIM! Racists will never be Americans!!! First they have to educate themselves. Learn how the constitution supports justice and equality for all, yes even immigrants that are Hispanic. Accept the constution the way it stands. Then maybe Racists can become Americans. ROTFLMAO!

  • Avatar
    Frank
    June 8, 2008 at 10:18 am

    With most Americans today, their ancestors came here after the U.S. became a soveriegn nation with established immigration laws. So no, their first children born here were not anchor babies.
    Why would anyone try to claim that it was only White people who came to this country from Europe? Oh, that’s right it is only White people that they hate and demonize.
    No, “we” didn’t kill off the indigenous. The people that did that are all DEAD NOW (that includes the Mestizo’s ancestors…the WHITE Spaniards)! Just because we have the same skin color of those who did that, does not make us guilty for their sins. We were all born HERE. We have no other country to go back to. Those were the countries of our ancestors and they don’t acknowledge those of us born in the U.S. as dual citizens of their countries!
    The Constitution doesn’t grant the same rights to illegal aliens (they aren’t IMMIGRANTS!) as it does to citizens and rightly so. The Constituton recognizes all citizens whether they be racist or not. It is a good thing because most of the pro-illegals would be expelled for their racism.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    June 8, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Anchor baby is a pejorative http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060402-9999-1n2tide.htmlhttp://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/06/23/news/top_stories/22_30_156_22_06.txt term used to refer to a child born in the United States to illegal immigrants or other non-citizens. The term refers to a resident alien’s child’s role in facilitating “chain migration” under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965. The baby becomes the “anchor” of the chain by which its family may receive benefits from social programs, and by which that family’s members may themselves eventually become citizens of the United States. The term “anchor babies” is also used to refer to children born to women who are legally in the US on temporary visas (for example a visitor’s visa) when the child’s birth is specifically intended to obtain citizenship under US law, however, this is more precisely described as birth tourism. Sometimes the term jackpot baby is used interchangeably with the term anchor baby, and this use is also derogatory.
    Horace
    You lie again. Do the homework before, you take something for granted. NOT EVERYONE IS A RACIST. Only those you hang with think like you. Next time look up ‘anchor baby’.

  • Avatar
    laura
    June 8, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    Irma and Daniel, I am interested in your perspectives on the border wall, healthcare, and work visas.
    Regarding healthcare: from my perspective as a medical professional, having many for-profit insurers leads to huge administrative costs, huge amounts of time wasted fighting denial of coverage, and basically the problem that these insurance companies are in the business of providing as little care as possible. In the competition they have among each other, the ones that are most successful at denying medical care are going to win, because their profits are biggest. Is that what we want?
    Personally, I favor Medicare for everyone. I am interested in your thoughts on this.
    Regarding visas – I agree with you Daniel that there need to be work visas for the jobs that are there and can’t be filled by Americans. There are millions of jobs like that, and the hypocrisy of the rich countries – here and in Europe – is pretending that they don’t want immigrants to do the hard labor for them. You won’t see Germans doing backbreaking agricultural work – these days, it is the Poles who come and do it for them. In this country, you will not find an American to plant and pick tomatoes. Yet we all want to eat tomatoes.
    Regarding amnesty – yes I am in favor of letting undocumented people regularize their status. I don’t like the word amnesty because it implies that a crime was committed – which both legally and morally is completely false. Undocumented people are here to perform the hard labor no American wants to perform – we need to thank them and appreciate their enormous contributions, which sustain and nourish us.
    Of course I agree with your goal – to stop the ethically corrupt persecution of undocumented people.
    Regarding the border wall – both Obama and Clinton voted for it. What do we do about that?

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    June 9, 2008 at 4:40 am

    Educated Americans and those with common sence are never going to accept your whitewashed version of history.
    You are the benefactor of your ancestors heinous crimes. That and the fact that you want to repeat those crimes, makes you a target to be continuously reminded of those crimes as a deterrant.
    When you learn the following and accept it, even if it has to be forced on you, THEN and only THEN will you be an American.
    The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights–and the blood shed to sanctify them–established our Republic. Only they define what it means to be an American. Therefore, patriotic Americans don’t just wear flags on their lapels. They swear allegiance to these founding principles, and solemnly promise to uphold, protect, and defend them.
    The Declaration begins, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Constitution and Bill of Rights reaffirm these distinctively American principles.
    There it is, in plain English. Every American knows from first grade that (1) it is self evident (2) that ALL of us have (3) God-given rights that (4) no one can sever from us for any reason. Although we can forfeit these rights by committing certain felony offenses, they cannot be arbitrarily taken away. This means that I have exactly the same right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness that any other American has, whether they agree or not.
    If you are a patriotic American, you don’t just give this lip service. You are sworn to uphold my rights just as I am sworn to uphold yours. Further, if you are a patriotic American, you have sworn your allegiance to the conviction that your religion does not trump mine. You have sworn to uphold, protect, and defend my rights as if they were your own. These rights include everyone within the borders of the U.S. regardless of their status.

  • Avatar
    Frank
    June 9, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    laura, I have to agree with your thoughts about healthcare. I thought that Hillary had the best healthcare plan because it would cover everyone. Obama’s plan is to make it only madate for children to be covered. Which is funny in a way because kids would tend to be healthier than adults. Our health breaks down as the years go by. I think adults are more in need of the coverage than children. However, I agree with you EVERYONE should be covered.
    There are very few jobs that Americans won’t do for a fair wage. Ag jobs is the only one I can think of where we might have a shortage of workers. We already have a visa available for this work but the employers are side stepping the use of it in favor of cheaper, illegal labor. There also can be improved mechanization for crop picking. I am all for temporary Ag workers where the need is proven.
    No matter how your want to label it, “amnesty, legalization”, etc. I am adamantly opposed to this. The reason being that we should never reward law breakers (and yes, they have broken our immigration laws no matter how you want to candy coat it with legal jargon). I don’t what persecution you are speaking of. We are enforcing our immigration laws and we should. Is it persecution to arrest a citizen for a crime they have committed?
    The border wall is a necessity in some sectors where the border is very porous and it will assist the Border Patrol immensely. We have over 2,000 miles of border to the south of us and yet 700 miles is objected to?

  • Avatar
    Frank
    June 9, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    There is no white washed version of history that White Americans are trying to push. We are well aware of what happened. But we didn’t do it and we were born here so we are U.S. citizens. There is nothing we can do to change that! What are we doing to repeat what our ancestors did? I don’t see any White Americans killing off Native American indians lately.
    Those Mestizo’s ancestors south of the border and even those who claim to be full blooded indian down there were never this far north of what we call the U.S. now. As I have already stated in here over and over again, many if not most of the White Americans alive today, there ancestors came here well after any conflicts with the native indians and well after this country was established as the USA. How are they guilty of anything?
    It would be like all Jews today holding a grudge against all modern-day Germans born AFTER WW2; or, all present-day people of Irish descent blaming all people of English descent responsible for atrocities committed against the Irish in centuries past. It is simply irrational and wrong and divisive. And in the end, it will only result in their resentment and hatred being eventually returned. Then the cycle continues.
    Their idea of “freedom, justice, and equality” is anarchy! This is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind for our country! And as usual, they twist the constitution to suit their anti-American agenda. Since when are Socialists/Marxist pro-American??? That’s a new one! A long time ago they laid out their blue print for tearing this country down. And those like Evelyn are following it to a “T.”
    Freedom, justice, and equality does not mean that we give up our national sovereignty! NO! It means that those who are CITIZENS of this country have equal rights under the law. That’s it! It doesn’t mean that those who sneak into our country have the right to stay here.
    The flip side of freedom is responsibility. You cannot have freedom without responsibility or you have anarchy.
    Those who claim “whitewashing” of our history are just as guilty of “brownwashing”, revisionist, Socialist-inspired propaganda. When one speaks of the greatness of America, the greatness of those who built this country ALONG WITH the negative aspects, then I’ll believe one is sincere. Right now all that is happening is using history to forward one’s Socialistic political agenda.
    Again, MY ANCESTORS did NOTHING to any indigenous or anyone else. The difference is that they were not brainwashed by Socialist propaganda into a “victim” mentality.

  • Avatar
    adriana
    June 9, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    Irma wants to go back to the days when Hillary Clinton tried to deliver health care and couldn’t. It was a disaster. Why should Clinton get credit for something she couldn’t and wouldn’t do?
    Ted Kennedy, sick with brain cancer, is writing the health care legislation for Obama to sign once he gets in office.

  • Avatar
    Bartolomé de Las Casas
    June 9, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Laura,
    Governor Fischer, of the Huston, TX branch of the Federal Reserve, just said a few hours ago on CNBC that Medicare was 45 TRILLION – with a “T” in debt. And that Social Security was 17 trillion in debt.
    He said the politicians want to print (money) their way out of this.
    Which devalues the dollar (in addition to other GOV manuevers that do), which keeps us chasing more and more of them to keep up, which makes us economic slaves.
    It gets worse. People, injured and unable to provide for themselves and their families, are turned down by Medicare as standard procedure.
    They must see a judge in order to collect.
    I get your point about the inverse relationship between profit and coverage in the private sector but if asked which I prefer to fix I would have to say the private sector.
    Government does NOTHING right.
    Education, defense, health care – all botched by government.
    remember, there is no such thing as government. There are people USING the name of government to take the money you and I work for so that they can fund live large while you and I produce.
    You and I produce, they spend. Sounds like a plan.
    Who has the best health care coverage in the world? A European country? No. The United States Congress.
    They did it through increasing competition. The congress does not get Medicare. They get private health insurance.
    The less coverage, the more profit can be fixed through market competition.
    John McCain’s plan offers tax free premiums. That’s a start in the right direction.

    On the border wall, they have the momentum. Unless lawsuits against the feds pan out, I think they’ll continue building it.
    However, both McCain and Obama have made positive statements concerning the migration or our people.
    We’ll see on Jan 20th, the first 100 days, which direction the new president will go on the wall issue. My bet is that it will get buried and will wind up dead in the water.
    And the zionists Chertoff, his red lipsticked cohort (eww), will find themselves in the unemployment line.
    Respectfully,
    Daniel

  • Avatar
    Frank
    June 10, 2008 at 8:31 am

    So Daniel are you now “Bartlome” in here now?
    Aren’t you an American citizen? If so, why do you call Mexicans “your people”? Aren’t Americans your people instead? Or is this all about skin color and race to you and yours?

  • Avatar
    Horace
    June 10, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    “Who has the best health care coverage in the world? A European country? No. The United States Congress.”
    Bart old buddy, whether we federal government employees have the best health care coverage in the world is debatable, but one thing’s certain, we pay for it to the tune of almost $3,600 per year per employee.

  • Avatar
    Javier Solis
    June 10, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    Lil Flamey Butt: “Aren’t you an American citizen? If so, why do you call Mexicans “your people”? Aren’t Americans your people instead? Or is this all about skin color and race to you and yours?”
    holy smokes, someone get the virtual fire extinguisher, because frank’s flamey butt is in on fire again.

  • Avatar
    Frank
    June 10, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    Why not answer the question instead, coward!

  • Avatar
    Publius
    June 13, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    “2, More work visas and an overhaul of the current system used to dole them out – must include a “path to citizenship” for all law abiding workers who have laid down roots here (homeowners and some type of fair equivalent for renters).”
    Daniel, is it ok for peoples of other countries to compete for these work visas, or are they to be alocated just to Latin Americans. If so, what is your justification? There would of course be a limit to the number of available jobs. And would those visa holders be required to go home if they lose their jobs in a economic downturn? And if we require them to go home, how would we make them if they refused to do so?

  • Avatar
    Irma
    June 14, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    Guess what? The President doesnt “sign” legislation, they have to wait for Congress to approve it. That is a battle ALL President have. NO, I dont want to
    back to the Hilary’s first health care plan.
    She has learned a lot since then. The current plan is the BEST out there and yes MANDATEs coverage for those who have NO OTHER coverage. Yes there is financial penalty This is no new concept.
    There is a financial penalty when you run a red light, dont pay your taxes, dont show up in court,, run out on your children etc. There SHOULD be a penalty for people who walk into an emergency for free medical care and stick the public
    with bill.
    By the way, if you thnk Keneedy is writing a bill in his current condition – you must be living under a rock.
    The man had part of his brain removed,
    he is definitely not working even if his pu blicist says he is. And why should
    he ? He and his family have given enough to the US -they dont owe us anything.

  • Avatar
    Gabor Rosta
    June 15, 2008 at 10:58 am

    http://www.IWantToVoteToo.com
    Press release
    Globalization is now an accomplished fact. Its most important practical effect is that events, which can occur anywhere on the planet, affect all individuals, communities, and societies regardless of their location. The presidential election of a certain country often directly affects hundreds of millions, living in other parts of the world. This is particularly true in the case of the 2008 US presidential election. The US presidential election in 2008 is no longer a US internal affair! In the age of globalization, no election is! Our political choices are given a global dimension.
    The objective of http://www.iwanttovotetoo.com is to raise the democratic elections of different countries to the global level and to operate a global platform for expressing opinions as a free, interest neutral service.
    By using the http://www.iwanttovotetoo.com website anybody – even people living in the most obscure locations – can communicate their opinions that are relevant to the candidates of democratic elections that are taking place in any country of the world.
    When we decide who will be the next president of the United States, we form an opinion based on our value system. US Presidential candidates are known to all, they are in the spotlight of media attention. Everybody forms an opinion about the candidates and – given the opportunity – chooses among them.
    The short-term objective of the http://www.iwanttovotetoo.com web site is to establish the framework and channels of expressing opinions globally, and to extend it to all prospective democratic elections in the long run.
    It may be educational for the elected politicians of a given country to learn about the preferences and value choices of people living in faraway places. The decision of the country’s own voters, however, is even more interesting for the analysts and politicians of that respective country. The web site does not take sides and does not try to influence anybody. It exclusively collects data and assembles a database of collected results, which may be freely used, analyzed, and interpreted by the public.
    If you find it worthwhile, please help disseminate the information about the web site to as many people as possible, so that even more people can cast their vote for the presidential candidates of the Unites States on November 4 and for other prospective democratic elections worldwide.
    The service operator has conducted negotiations on issues arising in connection with Internet voting, on this web site with the office of the ombudsman of data protection, wherein all arrangements were approved. Should you have further questions or require assistance that is relevant to the service, please contact us at info@iwanttovotetoo.com . We would be pleased to be of service.
    http://www.iwanttovotetoo.com

  • Avatar
    Horace
    June 15, 2008 at 4:36 pm

    “The man had part of his brain removed,….”
    Irma, he’ll never miss it. He’s been brain dead for years.

Comments are closed.

35 Comments