Obama and Romney: Immigration Policy
McClatchy has a nice comparative infographic with the following piece: Romney tries to cut into Obama’s lead among Latinos.
Meanwhile, the piece starts with a clear example of “it’s a little too little, it’s a little too late”:
Mitt Romney appears to be banking this week on Latinos having short-term memories – unveiling a softer tone on immigration during the Republican presidential candidate’s strongest push yet to cut into President Barack Obama’s commanding lead for the Latino vote.
The GOP nominee ratcheted up advertising in Latino markets, addressed the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and appeared on the leading Spanish-language networks, Univision and Telemundo.
Romney personally and Romney the campaign were such asses during their Univision studio that the hostess of that show – the Latina Oprah – is talking openly about it (as opposed to being an unnamed source). So whatever small amount of benefit he might have received from his brownface routine will now be completely swamped by yet another confirmation of what an entitled, unpleasant personality he has, as well as his lack of personal ethics.
Worst campaign ever.
Romeny suffered a head trauma in 1968 that left him in a coma. He’s got brain damage.
However, will the Hispanic vote materialize? Been a steady stream of articles like this NPR piece saying the turn out will be low. We’ll find out in November’s exit polling.
I didn’t think Romney’s “brown face” was really a desperate attempt to pander to the hispanic vote. Then again, I in my opinion, I wouldn’t consider Hispanics to be stupid enough to to vote for Romney just because he happened to have a similar skin tone. /shrug.
Then I read this:
Taken from McClatchy:
I’ve heard this over and over again without context, to the point that I no longer consider it a statement of any meaning (nevertheless, I have doubts that Latinos are any more eager to pull the lever for Obama than I am). It’s as silly as the “are you better off than you were 4 years ago” question, an irrelevant data point regarding the current choices.
If anyone wants to see real evidence that Romney and his staff are incompetent, one has to look no further than their attempt to appeal to Hispanics. Hispanics are not going to vote for any Republican candidate. All a Republican does when they try to appeal to Hispanic is muddle their message and alienate middle class white voters who are actually open to voting for Republicans.
Just 8 years ago GW Bush got 40% of the Hispanic vote.
The Washington Post had a story of what made the numbers that went up. First, a program that was started in 2008 have been put into full effect. Second, people who used to not be counted are now counted. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/02/obama-is-accused-of-inflating-his-deportation-numbers-whats-really-happening/
There are apparently no new policy started by the Obama Administration that has actually increased immigration enforcement in the interior. Actually, the Obama Administration has refused to enforce the law in several instances and has allow states to refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
@Me Me Me:
As I have posted before at Outsidethebeltway.com https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/gop-hispanic-outreach-is-on-fire/#comment-1505159, Bush II never received 40% of the Hispanic vote.
Bush received much less than 40% of the Hispanic vote and much of that was from ethnic Cubans. The idea that poor and blue collar Hispanics are going to vote for the low tax, lower entitlement spending party instead of the high tax on gringos, high entitlement, and special ethnic set aside party is laughable.
@superdestroyer: You aren’t entitled to your own facts. Although apparently the author of it doesn’t know that:
Because, as we all know, the poll before election day is more important that the poll of people who actually, you know, voted.
The fact that Bush won Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico…coincidence.
Back when Republicans thought they had built “the permanent Republican majority”, they couldn’t trumpet that 44% figure loud enough.
Later own when they discovered that they couldn’t continue to count on Hispanic support once their white supremacist leanings became evident, they all started coming up with the new spins on the data.
But lets go nuts here and say instead of Bush getting 40%, he got 35%.
That still destroys your claim that no Hispanic will vote for a Republican.
@Me Me Me:
I love it when progressives refuse to accept a peer reviewed journal as a reference. Virtually every group that looked at the exit polling data showed that it overstated the Hispanic support for Bush II. If you look at counties in Texas, New Mexico, etc that are majority or overwhelming Hsipanic shows that Bush II did not get 44%. If bush II only got a few percent of the vote in Duval County in Texas then that would mean that Bush II had to get over 50% of the vote in Houston.
Before you claim your own facts, please provide cites that show that after all of the initial exit poll data was review, that Bush II really received 44% of the Hispanic vote. Repeating the claim by citing the initial reports from CNN does not cut it against a peer reviewed journal.
@Me Me Me:
Also, Reagan received about 25% of the Hispanic vote in 1980 and managed to win Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico. And I doubt that Hispanics in 1980 voted against Reagan because of the Republicans position on immigration in 2005. Reagan foolishly passed pushed for amnesty during his administration and Bush I received about 25% of the Hispanic vote in 1988.
Once again, there is nothing that shows that Hispanics are anything other than very liberal voters who will vote for the party perceived to be the high tax, high entitlement party.
@superdestroyer: And I love it when you claim that one paper that concludes that Bush probably got 39% of the 2004 Hispanic vote is “proof” that refutes my claim that Bush got 40% of 2004 Hispanic vote.
I further love it when you cite a paper that concludes that Bush probably got 39% of the 2004 Hispanic vote as support for your assertion that
LOL, Let me quote to you a passage from this peer-reviewed paper that you say is Biblical:
Where did the missing 19% of the Hispanic vote go? John Anderson?
This paper that you are so enamored of endorses the following HIspanic vote counts:
2004: Bush 39%
2000: Bush 35%
1996: Dole 21%
1992: Bush 28%
1988: Bush 32%
1984: Reagan 37%
So much for your thesis that Hispanics are incapable of voting R.
@Me Me Me:
Why are progressives incapable of providing cites instead of nitpicking the cites they demand of others.
@Me Me Me:
From http://www.hispanicvista.com/hvc/Opinion/Guest_Columns/102504schmal.htm (note that an actual cite is provided)
According to CBS and New York Times Exit Polls, Jimmy Carter received 60.1% of the Hispanic vote. In contrast, the Los Angeles Times exit polls indicated that Carter had received 76% of the Latino vote, and that Reagan received only 22%
So there is polling data to show that Reagan received a small percentage of the Hispanic vote and that is his being a former governor of a state with a large Hispanic population and with the Cuban vote being a bigger share in 1980 than today.
Now, please provide your own cites on how great the Republicans do with Hispanic voters.
@Me Me Me:
Losing Hispanic votes by 40% or more means that the Republicans are losing in a rout. Adding million of future Hispanic voters by passing amnesty today in the hopes of getting 30% of their votes is a great example of the Republicans refusal to do math.
Amnesty means higher taxes, higher crime, higher insurance premiums, private school tuition, and more expensive homes in the good neighborhoods (See Elizabethe Warren’s writings on real estate) and any Republican who supports open borders and unlimited immigration has to be insane.
Painting with such a broad brush is never a good idea.
Considering that you are posting on a blog where some people throughout the political spectrum argue over sources that do not meet their ideology.
@Me Me Me:
Form the peer review journal article
In none of the 10 surveys does President
Bush reach 40% among Latinos,
and in nine of the 10 he was found to
receive less than 35% of the Latino anticipated
Supporting open border and unlimited immigration in the hopes of getting less than 35% of the Hispanic vote is just another path to total irrelevance for the Republican Party.
I never demanded a “cite”. You volunteered one. And it destroys your entire argument. So why should I bother finding some equally useless “cite” when the one you provided is more than good enough to demonstrate that your “point” that
is utter nonsense?
As for your comment at 12:19:
1) When I rely on exit polls to say Bush got 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, you cry foul and say I have to rely on your “cite” instead.
2) When your “cite” contradicts your claim that Reagan got 25% of the Hispanic vote in 1994, you cry foul and say I have to rely on exit polls instead.
Conclusion: there is a reason why people like you rarely try to incorporate hard facts into your arguments. You don’t understand how the basis process works.
There you go again. Putting words in my mouth. Like the space between your ears, there is a gigantic gap between your claim (“Hispanics are not going to vote for any Republican candidate”) and this position you’ve just invented and falsely attributed to me (Republicans do great with Hispanic voters).
The name of that gap is “reality”. And here is what it looks like: there are millions of Hispanics, and, as Reagan and Bush II proved, Republicans can get millions of Hispanic votes.
Just not in election years when they are pandering to a base that operates on the assumption that Hispanics are inferior.
1) What Republican candidate ran on that platform?
2) You don’t actually know any Hispanics, do you? The #1 fans of deportation and stricter controls are Mexican-Americans who are here legally. But yeah, at the same time they do tend to take umbrage at jokes about electrifying the fence to lethal levels.
Your confusion on these issues is yet more evidence of damage that is done by the right-wing echo chamber.
I suggest you get out a bit more.
@Me Me Me:
John McCain ran on a platform of inviting the world to come to the U.S. and would call any Republican that opposed amnesty a racist. Bush II also proposed amnesty along with no border control. Of course, Bush II was not capable of simple addition, so I guess it makes sense.
Karl Rove believes that Hispanics are future Republicans and keeps proposing open borders.
If Hispanics are against illegal aliens, then why does every member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus support amnesty for all illegal aliens? Why does the CHC oppose any physical barrer along the border. Why does Raúl M. Grijalva support amnesty for all illegal aliens and speak at organizations that promote the free movement of labor between Mexico and the United States.
There may be Hispanics who do not want open borders and unlimited immigration but those Hispanics keep voting for liberal Democrats who want as many third world immigrants in the U.S as possible.
@Me Me Me:
I always love it when progressives claim that non-progressives are not exposed to minorities. I attended public schools that were less than 40% white but over 50% Hispanic. I live around Hispanic culture for 20 years and realize that there is nothing conservative about it.
@superdestroyer: Bush II also proposed amnesty along with no border control.
And yet according to your “cite” his share of the Hispanic vote went DOWN, even though you are convinced that Hispanics want as many third world immigrants in the U.S as possible.
Get your horribly confused story straightened out and then we’ll talk.
@Me Me Me:
Bush II proposed open borders and unlimited immigration in 2005, after his re-election. McCain agreed with everything that Bush II proposed but in 2008 McCain received about 25% of the Hispanic votes.
Once again, the idea that the Republicans can get a significant portion of the Hispanic vote is laughable. If losing the Hispanic vote by over 25% when the Republicans had spent years pandering to Hispanics just demonostrates how stupid it is for conservative to throw middle class whites under the bus in order to pander to Hispanics.
Maybe if Bush II had concentrated of helping middle class whites instead of poor Hispanics, Bush II would not have left office with a 20% approval rating.
I know that by your standards any type of immigration reform equals “open borders” etc, but the claim you make here is utter hogwash.
Romney’s face painting looked more like an Oompa Loompa than any Latino I have ever met.
Meanwhile, didn’t Bain Capital buy the Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory and ship the Oompa Loompa’s jobs to China (after raiding their pension plan, of course!).
@Steven L. Taylor:
Amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants along with increase the number of legal immigrants is nothing more than amnesty and open borders in slow motion. When the policy of the government is that every illegal aliens will eventually be given amnesty, that is defacto open borders.
Of course, Bush II was willing to give the cheap labor Republicans whatever they wanted while spitting in the face of middle class whites who are the core Republican party voters.