The race card is played more when it comes to immigration than on any other issue. I’d estimate at least 40 million times a day or more. I mean if you figure there are 20 million illegal aliens – a low estimate in my opinion – and they each complain twice about immigration in the United States, you can be sure that they’ve played the race card because there’s no other argument for them to use.
But contrary to popular belief, there are “racist” Latinos as well as “racist” white people like myself who want illegal immigration to be stopped. For instance this Fresno Bee article points out a few of them.
Unlike some Hispanics, Muñoz Palmer has grown irritated by the largely Latino immigrant protests — which she says only blame the United States for the problems facing undocumented workers.”We need to hold off on people coming in for five years until we get this cleaned up. We have to stop letting people come in. They do it in Australia. … This whole thing is such a mess,” she said. … she wants the borders closed. The 44-year-old says that once there’s a solution to stem the flow of illegal and legal immigration, the borders can reopen.
“I’m against people coming to this country illegally and then having children here. … I’m against employers hiring illegal immigrants and taking jobs from others here,” said 55-year-old Paul Garcia, a retired farm laborer who was born in Mexico and came into the United States legally before becoming a U.S. citizen.
Garcia, who lives in Fresno, said he prefers using prisoners to pick crops in the fields rather than undocumented workers. He says he doesn’t care whether some Hispanics chastise him for his view.
“The traitors are them. They are coming here to protest, and they are not even registered voters and not U.S. citizens,” Garcia said.
Tomás Martinez, a third-generation U.S.-born Hispanic, has no beef with demonstrators. Martinez, a Republican of Mexican and Spanish descent, favors the Senate compromise to address the undocumented workers already here but wants more secure borders.
“Every country has a right to defend and define its borders. If we don’t defend the border … we are not exercising our sovereignty,” Martinez said. … “The student visas have been abused for the past five decades. … Many of the students are from the Middle East,” …
He said foreign students use the visas to come to the United States without the intent of returning to their home country.
“The student visas are a big leak,” Martinez said.
So there you have it, three “racist” Latinos, who are US citizens and want our border defended, secured and illegal immigration to stop.
Don’t just take their word for it though. Nearly half of the Latinos in Arizona (47%) apparently are “racist” as well since they voted for Proposition 200 which allows for asking immigration status before receiving government services. Then there’s You Don’t Speak For Me where there’s a lot of Latinos that the illegal aliens don’t speak for.
The fact is that this immigration debate has nothing to do with race or racism. That is a trumped up charge by those who want no borders and want illegal immigration to continue for whatever reason. Don’t feel bad if you bought into this total crock though, even some of our leaders like Senator Lindsey Graham have fallen for it calling for “the bigots to shut up”. I wonder if he told that to all of the folks above.
Immigration reform is starting to look like it will be a casualty of the “take our country back” conservative movement. Even as the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that it had released the bill to the full Senate, its counterpart in the House had hit a logjam.
Well, yesterday, the U.S. Senate voted 82-15 on a motion to begin a formal debate on the so-called ‘Gang of Eight’ immigration bill that would affect 11 million unauthorized immigrants and U.S. employers.
White House-backed immigration legislation gained momentum in the Senate on Thursday as lawmakers closed in on a bipartisan compromise to spend tens of billions of dollars stiffening the bill’s border security requirements without delaying legalization for millions living in the country unlawfully.
“Once the Senate adopts our amendment, I will be proud to vote for a bill that secures our border and respects our heritage as an immigrant nation,” Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said in a statement. Additional GOP support was expected as a result of measures that backers dubbed a “border surge.”
Under the emerging compromise, the government would grant legal status to immigrants living in the United States illegally at the same time the additional security was being put into place. Green cards, which signify permanent residency status, would be withheld until the security steps were complete.
Officials said the plan envisions doubling the size of the Border Patrol with 20,000 new agents, completing 700 miles of new fencing along the border with Mexico and purchasing new surveillance drones to track would-be illegal border crossers. The cost of the additional agents alone was put at $30 billion over a decade.
In addition, immigrants would not be able to claim credit for Social Security taxes they paid while working without lawful status. Credits are used to determine the amount in Social Security benefits a worker receives after retirement.
Under another change, neither the administration nor states would be permitted to grant welfare benefits for five years to immigrants currently living unlawfully in the United States
There was no immediate reaction from the White House to terms hashed out by senators in both parties, although Democrats kept administration officials apprised of the talks.
The agreement began to take shape over the past several days beginning with a series of meetings involving Republicans who were uncommitted on the legislation but receptive to supporting it after changes were made. Eventually, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., both authors of the bill, joined the talks.
If agreed to, the changes could clear the way for a strong bipartisan vote within a few days to pass the measure that sits atop President Barack Obama’s second-term domestic agenda.
The officials who described the emerging deal spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks were private.
The developments came as Democrats who met with House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday quoted him as saying he expected the House to pass its own version of an immigration bill this summer and Congress to have a final compromise by year’s end.
Boehner, R-Ohio, already has said the legislation that goes to the House in the next month or two will not include a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the United States illegally.
The potential compromise in the Senate came into focus Wednesday, one day after the Congressional Budget Office jolted lawmakers with an estimate saying that as drafted, the legislation would fail to prevent a steady increase in the future in the number of residents living in the United States illegally.
The estimate appeared to give added credibility to Republicans who have been pressing Democrats to toughen the border security provisions already written into the bill.
“Our whole effort has been to build a bipartisan group that will support the bill,” said Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., who’s helped develop the deal along with Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. “That’s what this is all about, and it’s focused on border security.”
Schumer and Menendez met at midday Wednesday with Graham, Hoeven, Corker and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. The Democrats, Graham and McCain are part of the so-called Gang of Eight.
It was unclear which other portions of the Senate legislation might be changed. There is pressure from some Republicans to make sure no federal benefits go to immigrants who are in the country illegally, at least until they become citizens.
The underlying legislation already envisions more border agents; additional fencing along the U.S-Mexico border; surveillance drones; a requirement for employers to verify the legal status of potential workers; and a biometric system to track foreigners who enter and leave the United States at air and seaports and by land.
Schumer said discussions with Republicans “have been really productive.”
“We’ve made a lot of progress in the last 24 hours. Now we have some vetting to do with our respective allies,” he said.
If ratified, the compromise would mark concessions on both sides.
Some Republicans have been unwilling to support a bill that grants legal status to immigrants in the country illegally until the government certifies that the border security steps have achieved 90 percent effectiveness in stopping would-be illegal crossing.
On the other hand, Democrats have opposed Republican proposals to make legalization contingent on success in closing the border to illegal crossings. Under the legislation as drafted, legalization could begin as soon as a security plan was drafted, but a 10-year wait is required for a green card.
One plan to change that was sidetracked on a vote of 61-37 Wednesday.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said his proposal would require Congress to vote annually for five years on whether the border is secure. If lawmakers decide it is not, “then the processing of undocumented workers stops until” it is, he said. The decision would be made based on numerous factors, including progress toward completion of a double-layered fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and toward a goal of 95 percent capture of illegal entrants. A system to track the border comings and goings of foreigners is also required.
Across the Capitol, House Republican leaders sought to present a friendlier face to Hispanics — a group that gave Obama more than 70 percent support in last year’s presidential election.
Boehner met with the Democratic-dominated Congressional Hispanic Caucus, while rank-and-file members of his party reviewed areas of agreement with Latino religious leaders.
“It’s a conversation Republicans want to have,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., said later at a news conference outside the Capitol.
Separately, the House Judiciary Committee approved legislation creating a program allowing farm workers to come to the United States to take temporary jobs in the United States.
The measure is one of several that the panel is considering in the final weeks of June as part of a piece-by-piece approach to immigration rather than the all-in-one bill that Senate is considering.
GLENN: IMMIGRATION BILL WORSE THAN OBAMACARE
“There is no Recovery from this one.” -Glenn Beck
Glenn unloaded on the ‘Gang of 8’ immigration reform bill being pushed by the President and many members of both parties. He went so far as to say this bill is even worse than Obamacare. How can anything be worse than what has amounted to a government takeover of healthcare
During a Spanish-speaking interview last week with Univision, Marco Rubio made the following statement: “Let’s be clear. Nobody is talking about preventing legalization’s. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then comes the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”
Whether or not the Republican Senator from Florida knew his comment would receive the amount of attention that it did, conservatives weren’t happy. And with good reason — it’s the exact opposite of what he’s been touting to the right since the immigration reform debate began. How many times was border security used as the prerequisite for amnesty? Countless.
Among the conservatives that are far less than pleased with Marco Rubio is Mr. Glenn Beck.
“Let me tell you something, Marco Rubio, I haven’t trusted you for quite some time. Everybody’s been on this ‘Marco Rubio Bandwagon’. Why?” Glenn asked
Stu pointed out that even they jumped on the bandwagon at one point. Pat compared it to the Chris Christie phase that is now also long gone.
“As with Chris Christie and everybody else we had high hopes in, we wanted him to be the guy we thought he was,” Pat said.
“He’s not,” Glenn added.
Once again we are going to be fooled into believing that the border will be closed. Why would you believe that since the last time it never happened. We still have an open border.
What would happen to us if we crossed into Mexico, Russia, North Korea, Africa or China without proper papers? Do you think they would be giving us free health care, cell phones, food stamps, etc..?