Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

For the Republican Party, politically, there's good news and bad news in our new NBC/MSNBC/Telemundo poll on the subject of immigration. Let's start with the good news: The Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, passed by a GOP-led legislature and signed by a GOP governor, has been a short-term political winner. The poll shows that 61% of the public supports the law, and a Republican congressional candidate who backs the law beats a Democratic candidate who opposes it, 40%-26%. But here's the bad news: Latinos, once a semi-swing group of voters, now have swung overwhelmingly for President Obama and the Democratic Party, and younger Hispanics are moving to the Democrats in even greater numbers.

Read more: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/ ... z0p3pqoihX" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama pulled 67% of Hispanic voters in '08 already. They're already predominantly Dems.

http://hispanic.cc/census_finds_huge_gr ... voters.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ASUG8 wrote:Obama pulled 67% of Hispanic voters in '08 already. They're already predominantly Dems.

http://hispanic.cc/census_finds_huge_gr ... voters.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And losing another 10-15% could turn the next election.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Obama pulled 67% of Hispanic voters in '08 already. They're already predominantly Dems.

http://hispanic.cc/census_finds_huge_gr ... voters.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And losing another 10-15% could turn the next election.

And conversely, any Republican NOT supporting it will lose my (and many others) vote.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
And losing another 10-15% could turn the next election.

And conversely, any Republican NOT supporting it will lose my (and many others) vote.

Or my name isn't Tom Martinez!

ASUG8 wrote:Obama pulled 67% of Hispanic voters in '08 already. They're already predominantly Dems.

http://hispanic.cc/census_finds_huge_gr ... voters.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And imagine how stoked Republicans would be if they could get 67% of African Americans.

If Republicans and tea baggers continue down their path... they'll be bitching about not even getting 10% of hispanic and black vote in 20 years.

The party of old, white men isn't very sustainable... and, luckily, the still haven't figured that out.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:The party of old, white men isn't very sustainable... and, luckily, the still haven't figured that out.

And if we have to rely on young white men like you, jelly, we are well and truly fokked.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Obama pulled 67% of Hispanic voters in '08 already. They're already predominantly Dems.

http://hispanic.cc/census_finds_huge_gr ... voters.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And losing another 10-15% could turn the next election.

If I were a legal Hispanic immigrant who had gone through the proper channels for immigration and saw a bunch of folks circumventing the system I would think I'd be in support of some sort of limitations on immigration. But maybe I'm crazy.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
And losing another 10-15% could turn the next election.

And conversely, any Republican NOT supporting it will lose my (and many others) vote.

Who you gonna vote for then........Barry???.......

Ivytalk wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:

And if we have to rely on young white men like you, jelly, we are well and truly fokked.

And if we have to depend on old white men like you to lead us into the future........then we are doubly truly fokked!

ASUG8 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
And losing another 10-15% could turn the next election.

If I were a legal Hispanic immigrant who had gone through the proper channels for immigration and saw a bunch of folks circumventing the system I would think I'd be in support of some sort of limitations on immigration. But maybe I'm crazy.

The racist lunatic Tea Baggers are hurting immigration reform.

mainejeff wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
If I were a legal Hispanic immigrant who had gone through the proper channels for immigration and saw a bunch of folks circumventing the system I would think I'd be in support of some sort of limitations on immigration. But maybe I'm crazy.

The racist lunatic Tea Baggers are hurting immigration reform.

You're probably right, but to you're point they're lunatics in some cases, and certainly on the fringe and not like mainstream voters. I applaud Arizona for doing SOMETHING rather than watch the Feds swim in circles for years to end up where they started. AZ likely didn't get it right the first time, but they're attempting to make some progress.

ASUG8 wrote: If I were a legal Hispanic immigrant who had gone through the proper channels for immigration and saw a bunch of folks circumventing the system I would think I'd be in support of some sort of limitations on immigration. But maybe I'm crazy.

And, the issue for them isn't necessarily that they support illegal immigration. They see it as government attack on their race, culture, language, etc.... as the poll says:

Hispanics’ opposition to the law stems from a widely held concern that it will lead to discrimination towards Hispanics who are citizens, or who are residing in the U.S. legally.

82% of Hispanics said they are concerned about profiling, compared with 66% overall.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/1 ... ation-law/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mainejeff wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
And if we have to rely on young white men like you, jelly, we are well and truly fokked.

And if we have to depend on old white men like you to lead us into the future........then we are doubly truly fokked!

Piss off, mollusk.

mainejeff wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
If I were a legal Hispanic immigrant who had gone through the proper channels for immigration and saw a bunch of folks circumventing the system I would think I'd be in support of some sort of limitations on immigration. But maybe I'm crazy.

The racist lunatic Tea Baggers are hurting immigration reform.

Well, they are certainly pushing immigration reform to the right - who would've thought a few months ago that a Democratic President would be sending troops to the border and would be advocating national ID cards? It's interesting how the whole reform movement has moved to a much more conservative one, and you have to think the large polling numbers throughout the US showing a wide majority in favor of Arizona's legislation has something to do with it.

Ivytalk wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
And if we have to depend on old white men like you to lead us into the future........then we are doubly truly fokked!

Piss off, mollusk.

Choke on a snail, Biff.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote: If I were a legal Hispanic immigrant who had gone through the proper channels for immigration and saw a bunch of folks circumventing the system I would think I'd be in support of some sort of limitations on immigration. But maybe I'm crazy.

And, the issue for them isn't necessarily that they support illegal immigration. They see it as government crackdown on their race, culture, language, etc.... as the poll says:

Hispanics’ opposition to the law stems from a widely held concern that it will lead to discrimination towards Hispanics who are citizens, or who are residing in the U.S. legally.

82% of Hispanics said they are concerned about profiling, compared with 66% overall.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/1 ... ation-law/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, I get that Jelly - it's an unfortunate side effect of enforcement and it's pretty well documented that the police aren't exactly on board with this particular solution to the problem. Arizona's action forces the Feds to put the issue closer to the front burner and address the issue. I support a path to citizenship, but we're not dealing with the level of immigration issues that Arizona is on an hourly basis. I don't know what the right decision is or how to avoid the obvious profiling issues that will emerge from this legislation, but taking some action (warts and all) is better than nothing.

ASUG8 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
And, the issue for them isn't necessarily that they support illegal immigration. They see it as government crackdown on their race, culture, language, etc.... as the poll says:





http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/1 ... ation-law/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, I get that Jelly - it's an unfortunate side effect of enforcement and it's pretty well documented that the police aren't exactly on board with this particular solution to the problem. Arizona's action forces the Feds to put the issue closer to the front burner and address the issue. I support a path to citizenship, but we're not dealing with the level of immigration issues that Arizona is on an hourly basis. I don't know what the right decision is or how to avoid the obvious profiling issues that will emerge from this legislation, but taking some action (warts and all) is better than nothing.

Why the hell a path to citizenship ?!???

native wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
No, I get that Jelly - it's an unfortunate side effect of enforcement and it's pretty well documented that the police aren't exactly on board with this particular solution to the problem. Arizona's action forces the Feds to put the issue closer to the front burner and address the issue. I support a path to citizenship, but we're not dealing with the level of immigration issues that Arizona is on an hourly basis. I don't know what the right decision is or how to avoid the obvious profiling issues that will emerge from this legislation, but taking some action (warts and all) is better than nothing.

Why the hell a path to citizenship ?!???

If you didn't swim the river, hop out of the back of some smuggler's truck, jump a fence or other means of illegal ingress to the US, have a desire to go through the process of naturalization, then what's the problem? If you're illegal, you should be deported - you broke US immigration law. If you're here on a work visa or other means of legal entry to the country and want to go through the immigration gauntlet then fine.

Skjellyfetti wrote:The party of old, white men isn't very sustainable... and, luckily, the still haven't figured that out.

Yup, they're all jumping ship for the party of handouts. No shocker there.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." - Alexander Tyler

ASUG8 wrote:

native wrote:
Why the hell a path to citizenship ?!???

If you didn't swim the river, hop out of the back of some smuggler's truck, jump a fence or other means of illegal ingress to the US, have a desire to go through the process of naturalization, then what's the problem? If you're illegal, you should be deported - you broke US immigration law. If you're here on a work visa or other means of legal entry to the country and want to go through the immigration gauntlet then fine.

We are in violent agreement, ASUG8!

native wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
If you didn't swim the river, hop out of the back of some smuggler's truck, jump a fence or other means of illegal ingress to the US, have a desire to go through the process of naturalization, then what's the problem? If you're illegal, you should be deported - you broke US immigration law. If you're here on a work visa or other means of legal entry to the country and want to go through the immigration gauntlet then fine.

We are in violent agreement, ASUG8!

you bastard!!!

I thought you were setting me up for cannon fodder......

ASUG8 wrote:

native wrote:
We are in violent agreement, ASUG8!

you bastard!!!

I thought you were setting me up for cannon fodder......

Not you, shipmate! You have never been a target.

89Hen wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:The party of old, white men isn't very sustainable... and, luckily, the still haven't figured that out.

Yup, they're all jumping ship for the party of handouts. No shocker there.

It's not because of "handouts", 89. Blacks started voting overwhelmingly Democratic in the 1950's and 60's. Unless you consider "equal rights" to be a "government handout" I don't see your point.

As I posted earlier... hispanics in the poll see this bill as discriminatory. They see Republicans as a party that discriminates them... much like blacks did in the 1950's and 60's.

It ain't handouts, and hopefully Republicans never figure it out. About the only demographic John McCain won over Obama was white men 60+. If they keep driving away people outside of that demographic without figuring out how to bring anyone else on board... the party will shrivel and die.

mainejeff wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
And if we have to rely on young white men like you, jelly, we are well and truly fokked.

And if we have to depend on old white men like you to lead us into the future........then we are doubly truly fokked!

Says an old white white man....