Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Latino Backlash Could Doom GOP

By Roberto Lovato, New America Media. Posted November 16, 2006.


This election showed Republicans' staunch anti-immigration stance is finally coming back to haunt them.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Roberto Lovato

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor's Note: The anti-immigrant rhetoric and legislation from many Republicans (and some Democrats) is stoking flames of resentment against Latinos among the GOP's largely white base. Should Latinos get fed up and refuse to vote Republican -- and exit polls suggest a large majority did just that on Nov. 7 -- the GOP could be doomed politically for years to come.

As I watched political history on my television and computer screens Tuesday night, I couldn't help but think about Lionel Sosa, the Latino who may have lost the most in this week's election. Sosa, a political consultant and director of Mexicans and Texans Thinking Together (MATT), a nonprofit in San Antonio, is largely credited with developing the strategies that colored almost 40 percent of the Latino electorate Republican red. I was curious about how it felt for someone who worked closely with Karl Rove, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan to watch his work turn Democrat blue. (Experts I interviewed and exit polls estimate that about 70 percent of Latinos voted Democratic last Tuesday, as compared to 53 percent in 2004). So, I called Sosa at the MATT office.

"I don't think everything I worked for is lost," Sosa said, "but Latinos did send a message to the Republican party: If we don't humanize the approach to immigration, it will cost us the Latino vote." His choice of the word "humanize" was telling, for Tuesday's election is but another reminder of the GOP's urgent need to move beyond appeals to the baser instincts of its still predominantly white base. Lionel's soft-spoken strategic advice must roar in the ears of his longtime friend Karl Rove, whose efforts to broaden the largely white Republican tent appear to have imploded.

Whether Republicans' enforcement-only approach to immigration -- the infamous wall and other punitive measures -- drives Latinos as deep into the anti-Republican camp as African-Americans (whose support for GOP is consistently in single digits) depends on whether we see the 187-ization of the nation.

I came to understand the long-term effects of anti-immigrant policies after fighting such policies in California. The most famous is Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative that called for the denial of health and education services to the children of undocumented immigrants. Prop. 187, which was eventually blocked in the courts, turned the Golden State into a template for the current immigration wars.

As I listen to strategists like Sosa and other experts ponder the possibility of an anti-Republican backlash among Latinos, I'm reminded of a 1993 meeting between a delegation of Latino activists and Latino elected officials and then-California Gov. Pete Wilson, the main sponsor of Prop 187. "I resent the implication that I'm a racist," Wilson told the group, pounding his desk. "I am not a racist and I give the Hispanic community more credit than to fall for this kind of race-baiting." I'd asked Wilson how he felt knowing that many of the 10-year-old Mexican and Salvadoran kids I worked with thought he hated them because of his leadership around Proposition 187.

Those kids turned 22 this year. They remembered Pete Wilson and his imitators throughout the country and paid them -- and the Republican party -- back by building the youthful army (the average Latino is 26) driving the largest mobilizations in U.S. history. Several told me that they organized around voting this year because they were too young to do so in 1994. As part of the largest Latino turnout (8.5 percent) in U.S. history last Tuesday, they delivered on their slogan, "Today We March, Tomorrow We Vote."

States, cities and towns such as Hazelton, Pa., are mimicking Pete Wilson's California by adopting anti-immigrant measures. More than 80 Proposition 187-like initiatives denying immigrants everything from drivers' licenses and health care to education and housing appeared on recent state ballots. These areas are also starting to resemble California demographically and socially. The elements for the 187-ization of the nation are in place: declining white population, fast-growing Latino population and a shrinking middle class in economic distress. White backlash against Latinos pushes them to mobilize in streets and into voting against the Republicans.

What's worse for the future GOP are distressing anti-Latino trends. Principal among these is how Republicans (and some Democrats, including Latino Democrats) framed immigration as the "national security issue." The organized and consistent attacks of the Minutemen did not exist in 1994. Since 1994, Latinos have had to stand by and watch weekly reports of the deaths of scores of immigrants in the desert; the number of immigration raids has reached historic highs according to Homeland Security officials; and the wall provides a concrete and fenced daily reminder of the loathing of Latinos.

These and other factors are giving birth to the 187-ization of the nation.

Sosa's warnings to his friends in the weakened seat of global power are on point. The Republican party must rapidly reverse the dehumanization of millions in our midst. Otherwise last Tuesday's results point to nothing less than a GOP future of political catastrophe.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: immigration, election06, latinos

Roberto Lovato is a New America Media writer based in New York.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
human
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 16, 2006 2:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Latinos (says this whitey) are every bit as human as white folks and love democracy evey bit as much as white folks if not more. The melting pot gets ever more shiny and Republicans are now the real minority who may never come to power again. Viva!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How big is your pot? Posted by: edith
» RE: human Posted by: JCR
All together now: Anti-"illegal" immigration
Posted by: YogiBear on Nov 16, 2006 2:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I came to understand the long-term effects of anti-immigrant policies after fighting such policies in California. The most famous is Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative that called for the denial of health and education services to the children of undocumented immigrants.

Does the initiative try to block health and education benefits to the children of legal immigrants? If not, it's not "anti-immigration" but anti-illegal immigration." Repeating this mantra about anti-immigration over and over and over again doesn't make it more true. That said, denying helath care to anyone in the U.S. is barbaric, probably illegal, but is a classic right wing ideological type of tactic. Some of the supporters of such a bill might be racist, but that doesn't in of itself make the bill racist, nor does it make it anti-immigrant.

States, cities and towns such as Hazelton, Pa., are mimicking Pete Wilson's California by adopting anti-immigrant measures. More than 80 Proposition 187-like initiatives denying immigrants everything from drivers' licenses and health care to education and housing appeared on recent state ballots.

Denies them to legal immigrants? Or only to illegal ones? If it's the latter, it's only anti-illegal immigration. It's also, in my opinion, generally bad policy. If the children of illegals don't get a good education, more will likely grow up to be criminals than not, as it is with any group. The drivers' license issue is a sticky one. Yes, it would be better for anyone driving a car to have driver education and to pay into the system. But we have to take into account the criminal element. Imagine if we had granted licenses to the 9/11 attackers? Now imagine we grant them to future terrorists or other scofflaws.

If people want to fully integrate into our society, they should be humble and first ask permission to be a part of society.

I think we should grant another amnesty ONLY if it is coupled with serious border reform and employer snctions. I also think that people who have been awaiting visas and green cards for the longest time (i.e. people who have taken the legal path to citizenship) should be first rewarded with citizenship. I'm sure that's a very long line. Isn't it sending the wrong message to choose only latinos for amensty? The promotion of one ethnic group over all others -- doesn't that seem racist to you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But, er, Mexico... Posted by: vangogh69
» RE: But, er, Mexico... Posted by: YogiBear
Irony
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 16, 2006 3:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why did 40% of hispanics vote for Bush in 2004?..."Moral values"?...which in English means anti-gay...which was all the rage in 2004.

There's an important lesson here: If you're running for office, make sure you pick on the right people at the right time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Irony Posted by: edith
» RE: Irony Posted by: TheNamelessCity
What spin!
Posted by: lclark on Nov 16, 2006 3:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This election was people voicing their disgust with the corportocracy, corruption, and the Iraq war for resources for corporations. Another goal of the multinationals is 'normalization' of wages between various parts of the planet, or in other words, wage suppression in the U.S.. That's what is behind the open borders and 'comprehensive illigration reform' which this 'progressive' site supports. The two parties are two wings of the same turkey that are undermining the middle class and sovreignty of this country.
The whole spin of saying it is a rascist issue is just manipulation. Doeasn't 'La Raza' mean 'The Race'.
You may also notice how USA today had two front page stories dealing with the illegal immigration issue yesterday. One was the emotional issue of the boy born in the U.S. meeting with the Mexican government for assistance in stopping the deportation on his mom. Out of the millions of illegal immigrants that do not get deported you have had continula media coverage of this boy and his mom for months.....what a skam.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need more facts
Posted by: edith on Nov 16, 2006 3:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In all the uproar over "immigration", which is really an uproar over illegal immigration, as few have problems with immigrants who have followed the often arduous rules, we ignore one major fact"

We have a large population of people who either legally immigrated to the US during their lifetime are children of such people, or are people whose parents or grandparents legally immigrated here.

My point is that millions of Americans are very close to the "immigrant" experience and we don't know what they think about "amnesty", "guest workers" or open borders. Frankly I'd give their opinion much weight. Perhaps reliable polls exist on this group and its views. Do we have such data?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We need more facts Posted by: djnoll
Stick to what's important
Posted by: edith on Nov 16, 2006 3:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I too am irritated by the press one for English, but my irritation is at the computerization of business phone calls and the difficulty in reaching a real person who can give me indivdual service. The provision of Spanish language info to a large group of residents doesn't bother me.

If we had the technology back in 1900, we could have had press one for Italian, two for Yiddish, three for German and four for French. You are upset over a non-material problem. The material issue is whether some immigrants(including English speaking Irish or English residents, or Caribbean English speakers) should be in the US at all, and if they should, if they should be allowed to work or get benefits. It is not the service provider's job to investigate legality of callers. It is their job to provide customer friendly service.

As good captialists, businesses that now use the Spanish phone option will drop it when the number of Spanish speakers drops significantly. That would occur if we would stricly guard borders and enforce current laws. That is the option I favor,not harassing people so that they can't get information over the phone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stick to what's important Posted by: Intraspecto
» RE: Stick to what's important Posted by: mwildfire
» RE: Stick to what's important Posted by: vangogh69
MASS immigration (legal OR illegal) is what is hurting america
Posted by: not_the_preferred_nomenclature on Nov 16, 2006 5:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the fakeleft and their aillies on the right are now manufacturing consent for a new, massive influx of cheap 3rd world labor by removing all immigration restrictions and speeding up the process of admission, so that all these illegals will become legal. Just walk across the border and inform the cops or whatever, and VOILA....you are LEGAL. Look for something like that. And it will have the same depressing effect on American citizen wages.

FakeLeft and Rightwing traitors disgust me....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Credit for some honesty ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Credit for some honesty ... Posted by: YinRising
yeah, pressing 1 for English; that hurts
Posted by: Beck on Nov 16, 2006 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Crawl back under your rock. This attitude that our country is fine except for aliens doesn't add up. Corporate thievery, religious hypocrisy, the kind of thinking that paying taxes (leaves out the upper class and corporations, doesn't it?) or speaking English makes you decent isn't even logical. Americans were raised to think we're the be-all and end-all, that we can trash the planet and other cultures because our "economy" (as if it's benefitting anyone but the upper crust) matters more than anyone else, more than any future generation. Hating illegal immigrants is the same as hating gays or feminists. Blame some other group (teachers? unions?) and you don't have to take the log out from your own eye. Prosecute the businesses hiring illegal aliens in a meaningful way and you'll solve that particular problem, but that won't happen in profit-addicted America. And about that comment that people who come here should learn the language: further evidence that more Americans need to live in another culture for awhile to find out how Americans act in alien situations. We lived in Germany while my husband was in the Air Force and beLIEVE me, Americans don't bother learning the words for "hello" or "goodbye" or "please, thank you" even when they've lived there for 5 or 10 years. I'm sure the response to this will be some version of "we don't have to because of the following ways that we're special and thus exempt ourselves from our own stated values systems" but trust me, Americans don't learn the language, don't respect the customs, and live there thinking that once the native population becomes just like us, they'll be normal. We're hated there, and for good reason, in fact, mostly for the exact reasons stated for hating the aliens here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Whiny whtie people
Posted by: chaoslegs on Nov 16, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Yeah, that could be the only reason. Not that they could be legal and they see the hate towards people like them in these policies.

2. Yeah they have taken over Lake St in Minneapolis. Who did they take it over from the massage parlors and saunas. I welcome this invasion, much like Cheney imagined the invasion would be welcomed in Iraq :)

3. Business and government are smart and make options available to their clients. And by the way there has NEVER been an official language in the US.

4. How the fuck do you get "Real Americans come here?" I would think your default would to say any one that is not here already can't be a Real American. Stupid language mangler, maybe you need to brush up on your ENGLISH!

5. OUR tax dollars should help people not corporations. I but you support joke programs like Missile Defense.

6. I bet if we put you in a time machine you would have hated the Irish, Swedish, Norwegians, Italians, Polish, etc... because they were different. Most of your complaints are rehashed from previous immigrations waves. I can't wait until we throw you on a reservation you frickin late comer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I t is ILLEGAL Immigration - Why Is That So Hard to Understand?
Posted by: jyork on Nov 16, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... It's The Demographics

Those of you truly interested in the issue of ILLEGAL immigration should read the book: FEWER by Ben Wattenberg. (Demographics of the world, Europe, US and elsewhere... very eye opening indeed... if you want to talk about this issue from a factual base as to the emotionally charged basis that certain interests want to keep you focused on.)

This entire issue of both ILLEGAL immigration and legal immigration has nothing to do with what you see in the media or, unfortunately, on Alternet's site either.

The TFR (The Total Fertility Rate) of both Europe and the US (without ILLEGAL or legal immigration) had dropped to less than 2.1 (the number necessary to maintain the population, reduce it (if it drops well below 2.1, or expand the population if the number is above 2.1 significantly.) Europe and the US, without either ILLEGAL or legal immigration is less than 2.1 and has been for some 20+ years with no relief in site... unless you factor in ILLEGAL and legal immigration.

The entire issue has been decided, without public knowledge, nor participation, that the population of the US will be taken to about 500 million in the next 50 years. The only way to do that is with legal immigration (which cannot be done without significant public awareness and potential control) and through ILLEGAL immigration (which is done to "look like" being out of control. It is, of course, fully controllable.)

The decision to take the US population to 500 million is a "back room" decision and one that could never bear the full light of public awareness as most Americans would not accept this event if they knew about it and knew its costs to the existing population and the overall effect on the US (pollution, transportation, health care, number of cars, highway infrastructure... just to name a few to get you started on realizing the absolutely huge impact this will have all over the society, politics, government, power in the US, and, of course, economics and economic power for the corporate-America we all love so dearly.

The US must have a doubling of population to even come close to matching the economic power of China and India or it will become a secondary or tertiary economic power – as defined by corporate America in their terms of what it means to them… not to “us.”

All of the emotionally charged stuff surrounding ILLEGAL immigration is a red herring. The entire focusing of the public debate is in on things that have nothing to do with what is actually going on. These "public issue" discussions were created by corpoate PR firms to take your eye off the ball.

So, read some more about demographics, about the population growth of the US as engineered to become 500 million. Decide if you like the idea of America at that level of density of people. That is where we are going. We passed the 300 million mark without much attention to how it got to that number. It all distills down to who you would like to have running this country? Corporate America or the people themselves?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bad immigration policy
Posted by: jmarley on Nov 16, 2006 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my personal opinion, the group that had the worst immigration policy EVER had to be the Natives. They let a bunch of greedy ass people onto their land and look what happened to them. Now the offspring of those same people filled with greed have the nerve to complain about illegal immigrants? Oh the hypocrisy!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Did Mexicans come from Spain? Posted by: vangogh69
» Interesting Theory... Posted by: YinRising
» RE: Interesting Theory... Posted by: YogiBear
» What post were you reading? Posted by: YinRising
» Inference and Context Posted by: Ulfhethner
» Believe in your own delusion... Posted by: Ulfhethner
Not getting it
Posted by: locutusofborg on Nov 16, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that most liberals have the same mental block. They can not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. How hard is it to understand that the policies, that some on the right, not all, are to stem the flow of ILLEGALS coming across the border. It is not to persecute anyone who is here or wants to come here illegally. This unaccounted for flow undermines the economic stability of our Country.

It also seems that most on the left miss the point that many republicans want open boards but for different reasons than most on the democratic side do. The open borders crowd on the right want cheap labor and the open borders crowd on the left want to give away our hard earned money away to anyone who comes across. Neither view is correct.

If either side is so adamant about opening the doors of our country to anyone who wants to come in and not respect out laws or sovereignty then why not just open the doors to your house and tear down the walls that protect it as well. See what happens to your house and your property and how long before you close the door and build up your walls again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not getting it Posted by: Lauren
Must be "Open Border Thursday" here on Alternet . . .
Posted by: JCR on Nov 16, 2006 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet just won't give up until everyone is on board and marching lock-step with their "unlimited illegal immigration" platform. So keep on with the subtle implication that those of us who don't agree with you are nothing more than xenophobic hatemongers Alternet. Here's an example of a typical Alternet ploy. It's very subtle in trying to imply that we're all opposed to "immigrants" and not "illegal immigration". Good one Alternet!

"Editor's Note: The anti-immigrant rhetoric and legislation from many Republicans (and some Democrats) is stoking flames of resentment against Latinos among the GOP's largely white base."

No sirreee, we're no better than the Minutemen or the KKK. We're all anti-immigrant to the bone and proud of it. We jump at the opportunity to bash immigrants and take special pleasure in depriving them of medical care and proper schooling.

Has it occured to you that some readers don't buy into your fantasy-driven myth that illegal immigration does NOT depress wages and is actually an overall positive step for America? Maybe we just don't think America needs another 20 million citizens right this minute. The dollar is about to collapse, China is eating our lunch, our jobs are migrating to India and the housing market is imploding and Alternet thinks the time is right to essentially open the border.

You paint us as anti-immigrant hatemongers because it's much easier for you to put a convenient, negative label on dissenters instead of debating the merits of their arguments. Spend a little time examining the issue without the subtle implications that we just hate immigrants. Some of us just think the laws need to be enforced, including those laws restricting the employment of illegal immigrants. That doesn't make us "anti-immigrant" (as if we just disapprove of immigrants in general and not the fact that illegal immigration drives down wages) just skeptical of Alternet's wild assertions.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late for an immigrant lynching down at Chinatown . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Won't Discuss Root Cause Posted by: CatDad
Costs
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 16, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
does anyone have any true data on the actual costs of illegal immigration that are trustworthy? Comparing the benefits of the illegals versus the costs? Of course the benefits mainly benefit the corporations or the rich and the costs are burdened by the taxpayers and citizens. Guess that's why. Anyone have any true data?
Pros:
cheaper goods to consumers (or more profit to companies)

multicultural society

human rights (allowing people to escape from backward countries)

cheaper household labour (lawn, maids, nanny, etc.)

cheaper food (agricultural workers paid less and more available)

Cons:
uninsured drivers

dui accidents

depressed wages for all workers

disease spreading (people coming from countries in which certain disease is indemic and they are not screened before entry)

sanitary (people living many people in one home against zoning codes)

crime (rape, tax evasion, prostitution, drugs, etc.) Any channels that can help illegal honest workers into the country can also funnel drugs, weapons, prostitutes, etc.

healthcare costs (ER visits, TB treatments, without insurance. Lawyers (abogados) suing doctors on illegal's behalf.)

education (cost to educate more children since all children, illegal or not, get free lower ed.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Costs Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Costs Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Costs Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: Costs Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
frank67
Posted by: frank67 on Nov 16, 2006 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of you raving and ranting about "the immigration problem" get the hell out of the country. All of you are offspring of immigrants. The exception would be Native Americans. So go back where you came from you bunch of A**holes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: frank67 Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: frank67 Posted by: locutusofborg
Quit lying, Alternet - native-born Hispanics don't buy it either
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Nov 16, 2006 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From a column by Ruben Navarrette Jr (yes, a Mexican-American) - Seattle Times, Aug. 24, 2005:

"One of the latest polls appeared in last week's issue of Time magazine, in which 61 percent of Hispanics rated illegal immigration a 'serious problem.'

"Then there was the recent survey put out by the Pew Hispanic Center, which measured the views of both native-born Hispanics and immigrants. It found that a majority of U.S.-born Hispanics (60 percent) support laws that deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

"It also found substantial support for the view that the number of legal immigrants admitted to the United States should stay the same (44 percent) or be reduced (16 percent); only 28 percent said the number should be increased. Most native-born Hispanics also said that illegal immigrants help the economy by providing cheap labor (55 percent), but the percentage of those who felt illegal immigrants hurt the economy (34 percent) was not far behind. In every respect, the study says, 'native-born Latinos are less enthusiastic about immigration than the foreign born.'"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bit of cherry-picking ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» "Highly selective" Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: "Highly selective" Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: "Highly selective" Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» more information please Posted by: Repeat After Me
Whites are Inconsistent
Posted by: Franco33 on Nov 16, 2006 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If americans don't like mexicans, they shouldn't have stolen the northern third of mexico.

It's too late now. Demographics will take their course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Whites are Inconsistent Posted by: Ulfhethner
» RE: Whites are Inconsistent Posted by: albrechtkrausse
"Plugging immigration's drain on black employment"
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Nov 16, 2006 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A new hotel workers' union contract finally recognizes that more immigration has contributed to fewer jobs for African Americans.
By Erin Aubry Kaplan - Los Angeles Times, Oct. 25, 2006

IN A CITY pathologically resistant to its history and permanently enamored of its future, Don Wilson is trying to bridge the gap.

There are many gaps in the L.A. worldview, but this one's bigger than most. Remember the massive immigrant rights movement? One of the issues it raised, however briefly, was the effect immigration had on black employment and whether there was anything to be done about it. This complicated issue was often reduced to a single question: Are they taking our jobs?

This is where Wilson comes in. Wilson has been a hotel chef for 31 years, 27 of them at the Century Plaza Hotel. Over those three decades, he has seen the workforce go from substantially African American to overwhelmingly Latino. Last year, he took a leave of absence to work on the diversity issue for his union, Unite Here. A couple of weeks ago, the work paid off when the union signed a new contract with the Beverly Hilton that encourages the hotel to employ more African Americans.

The ethnic-specific requirement is believed to be a first among union contracts, and one that Wilson and his union hope will fuel a larger effort to bring blacks back into the hospitality business. Hotel managers "just stopped hiring us," said Wilson, 50, with characteristic bluntness. "We were locked out of the industry, especially the culinary arts. They went to an immigrant workforce that they figured had a docile mentality and that wouldn't put up any resistance. But now we're taking a stand."...

...What's most significant about the clause, however, is that it's a confirmation of what even the most progressive people have long been loath to admit: Immigration is one of several factors that contribute to the ongoing crisis of black employment.

That doesn't mean blacks and Latinos are sworn enemies, as the media tend to conclude. To the contrary, the fact that a Latino-dominated service-sector union is attempting to adjust numbers that are frankly imbalanced is evidence that it is concerned about economically challenged African Americans in South L.A. and elsewhere. Even if the concern is purely political, it's the action that matters, particularly if it results in decent jobs for working-class blacks who have seen decent jobs in their communities evaporate over the last couple of decades.

One irony among several is that Unite Here is pushing to share the bounty of its union activism — better wages, greater health coverage — with African Americans who enjoyed those benefits until an influx of immigrants allowed hotels to cut loose workers they viewed as too expensive and, well, too activist. The same thing happened around the same time when downtown building owners decided to replace a chiefly black janitorial staff with a cheaper immigrant staff, which later fought to regain the benefits enjoyed by their black predecessors.

Wilson is not surprised that this issue has come full circle. "Blacks have a history of standing up for our rights," he said. "I've seen immigrants regularly do the work of two and three people. We're not going to do that. Nobody should do that. That's not being lazy, that's being tired. There's a difference."...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: typical ***** American cant push a button to speak English
Posted by: Gonzales_jo on Nov 16, 2006 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell me I'm curious was it an educated guess!

This type of **** scares me and were worried about immigrants migrating here. I think we need to focus on the shit thats already here clean it up first then worry about the rest.

Future welfare case DEFINATELY!

Another thing stupid, we Americans that already live here and can actually speak another language can benefit from pressing a ****** button to hear another language.

Now just tell me to leave because I can speak another language and I'll tell you to stick it as far up your *** as it will go.

Thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many Latinos are Against Illegal Immigration
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 16, 2006 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is a fallacy to assume that Latinos, milliions now who are already citizens, are going to be supportive of issues that support illegal immigrants or illegal immigration. Latinos voted for the Dems this last election for the same reason as many others did, the war. Many Latino citizens also feel it is unfair for illegal immigrants to receive benefits citizens receive without paying the price of citizenship. And, this is based on their own experience or parents experience. So, the fallacy is to presuppose that Latinos will view immigration refore as anti-Latino legislation, they are just as likely or more likely to simply view it as anti illegal immigration period. The author makes the mistake of seeing Latinos as a single, unfied block, and that is not the case at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Well ... Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» That's anti-intellectual ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: That's anti-intellectual ... Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Well ... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Well ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» And while you're at it ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» The way we debate Posted by: YogiBear
» Then why comment on this article? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Your problem is ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Yes we have no bananas Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Yes we have no bananas Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Yes we have no bananas Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Hello! LETS LEARN SOMETHING! Posted by: Gonzales_jo
So here's the deal....
Posted by: vangogh69 on Nov 16, 2006 3:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's archaic to limit workers to one particular location when:
1)Corporations are free to transgress boarders as they damn well please (which is odd since they're lawful "persons", which would seem to imply they were bound by laws of citizenships (does Walmart really have that many passports?)...eh hm).
2)Capital transgresses boarders by the minute and frankly, there's little surrounding us in the US which we can claim is manufactured in the US (meaning, we like to have our shit cheap and in 1,000 varieties, but damn if the people making it want to share the wealth).
3)Unfair (or shall we say "inequitable") economic policies all but pit worker against worker, with all of us racing to the bottom. If people really want to stem immigration, then fix the global economy so no one WANTS to leave their homeland. (I.E. we need to have a real heart-to-heart about Capitalism.)

Now, I find it sad that many in the US are scapegoating Mexican immigrants for "stealing their jobs and wages" when the blame for that rests with the economy, employers, and corporations. Secondly, half of Mexico was stolen from Mexico during the war, not so long ago, and those looking to get in have more "right" to the land than the current owners. (Surely Israel, which is so big on the "Right of Return" would agree? Perhaps we should ask our "friend and ally?") Additionally, who are decendents of American settlers (i.e. "white" settlers) to say who is and is not a real American when they themselves (or their Ancestors) displaced, enslaved, and murdered the indigenous population of this continent? I guess til we hear native americans claiming "illegal immigration" is a problem, I'll be unable to take the argument seriously.

It was Jews fleeing Europe, before that Slavs, before that the Irish, before that Italians, before all of them, the Negros of the South who were supossedly tainting the stock. Please! It was tired then and its still a tired argument. (And as a REALLY sad sidenote: Isn't it tragic how immigrants forget how their own groups were scapegoated once they become "White." The more things change...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So here's the deal.... Posted by: lclark
» open borders now!! Posted by: yellow
» RE: open borders now!! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: open borders now!! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: open borders now!! Posted by: Lauren
Bothered By Liberalism's Coalition With International Corporations
Posted by: FLGibsonJr on Nov 17, 2006 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "Editors Note" to this article really bothers me and it brings to light a fact that is often not discussed that much.

When it comes to the crucial issues that in the long term and on a large scale affect working and middle class families most, such as International Trade Agreements (often with authoritarian and murderous governments) and Immigration Law, liberals or at least the liberals who are in power very predictably line up in strong support of International Corporations and firmly against working class and middle class families. If these inherently unfair International Trade Agreements (which never preserve worker's rights and decent wages) and the acceptance of massive illegal immigration in violation of our laws (which catastrophically depresses the wages of those citizens who can least afford it), are issues which have come to define liberalism, I can no longer define myself as a liberal. In fact, I have already begun to describe myself as a Progressive Populist, and decidedly not as a liberal, because of these very issues.

I will go even further and say that when it comes to a working families long term prospects, often the stands taken by national liberals on these most important issues are very antagonistic toward these families best interests.

I have come to the conclusion that there needs to be a new dynamic in our politics that coalesces around Progressive Populist stands on issues like Trade and Immigration which would hold together most of the working and middle classes while drawing many who thought of themselves as Republicans in the past, but who are disallusioned over time as the veil which hid Corporate control over their party is lifted.

By politically de-emphasizing some social issues which usually divide the working and middle classes, and strongly emphasizing economic populist issues on issues such as Trade and Immigration, etc. a new strong majority coalition could be built which would truly make progress on the issues which are most likely to help working and middle class families.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Aren't These Guys (Douglas' Allies) Subjected To The Same Standards?
Posted by: Ulfhethner on Nov 17, 2006 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's funny how most here on AlterNet, scream and yell about "nationalism", "nativism" and "racism" when it is certain ethnicities promoting anything that might be called "separatism" even when it is on the issue of illegal immigration. It is often brought up that the National Vanguard is involved with the Minutemen, but never is it brought up by "progressives" that La Raza (The Race) promotes the very same thing denied to others.

In their own words:
http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/aztlan.html

and a critique:
http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/
Volume_XXXI/Issue_2/News/news1.shtml

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 'Cause it's not the same thing Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: How we pick and choose Posted by: Ulfhethner
» Why I no longer trust the Left... Posted by: Pat Kittle
» Why your judgement isn't worth much Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Kill NAFTA Posted by: Repeat After Me
» Take a chill pill Frothy... Posted by: Repeat After Me
» Dems, are you listening? Posted by: Repeat After Me
» If this is your a-game Posted by: Joshua Holland
» You had a point? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Try again Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Hand of the censor Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Hand of the censor Posted by: Pat Kittle
» RE: You had a point? Posted by: rg
» D'oh! Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: D'oh! Posted by: rg
» Not only that ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Nicely done joshua Posted by: Stop bush now
» RE: Nicely done joshua Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Not only that ... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Not only that ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Oh, the humanity Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Oh, the humanity Posted by: Joshua Holland
» More than "one way" here Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: More than "one way" here Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: More than "one way" here Posted by: YogiBear
» I didn't generalize Posted by: YogiBear
» But, wait ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Reading is good for you, too Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: eading is good for you, too Posted by: Joshua Holland
» *Bangs head against the wall* Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: *Bangs head against the wall* Posted by: Joshua Holland
» My head's bleeding too ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Reading is good for you Posted by: YogiBear
» A wonderful comment ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» The problem is ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Immune to data Posted by: Joshua Holland
» More Demographics!! Posted by: yellow
Undocumented settlements
Posted by: Burton on Nov 19, 2006 2:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If illegal immigration can be turned into "undocumented" immigration and is therefore OK, then I guess there is no problem with Israelis settling into Palestinian lands, right?

After all, there is no such thing as an illegal settlement, right?

And anyone would would oppose an undocumented settlement is a racist, right!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Undocumented settlements Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Undocumented settlements Posted by: HeroesAll
ASK JOSH WHY HE CENSORED MY RECENT COMMENT!!
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Nov 19, 2006 3:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As offensive as I find Josh Holland, I would not censor him if this was my website.

He apparently censored my recent comment merely because I embarrassed him. It certainly wasn't obscene or threatening.

I'd repost it so you could see for yourself, but obviously Josh would delete it again.

He may even delete this, but if you read this before he does, ask him why he pulled an O'Reilly!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» puh-lease Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Oh, lordy lordy, get a grip! Posted by: HeroesAll
» "El Futuro es Verde / The Future is Green" Posted by: Deport The Minutemen
» The 'immigration crisis' is a CON JOB Posted by: Deport The Minutemen
Congress should repeal NAFTA
Posted by: Deport The Minutemen on Nov 20, 2006 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 'immigration crisis' is a fabricated distraction from NAFTA and the disastrous Bush Administration policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll say it again -- it's mindless overbreeding, not race!
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Nov 21, 2006 2:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I support Mexico 100% if it refuses to let these fools immigrate!

< http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/joyce >

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Weapons of Mass Distraction Posted by: Repeat After Me
» Stupid White Men Posted by: Repeat After Me
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement