How Long Before Obama And Holder Sue Arizona Again?

[3rdnlng]

So you want to shoot me in the head? Very telling.

 

Yes, but I might have to aim much lower to do so.

[Magox]

Obama has a six-to-one advantage among Hispanics, leading Mitt Romney 70 percent to 14 percent among likely Latino voters. Obama also beats Newt Gingrich 72 to 14 percent. And Obama is also drawing a significant well of his Hispanic support from former John McCain voters. According to the poll, 40 percent of John McCain voters are now support Obama over Gingrich or Romney, while 38 percent are supporting Obama over Rick Santorum.

 

 

The poll is more evidence that Republican rhetoric on immigration is alienating a group of voters that was competitive for Republicans just a few cycles ago. In 2004, George W. Bush captured 44 percent of the Hispanic vote and tried to push a comprehensive immigration reform bill through Congress after his victory. Since that election and the failure of immigration reform for both parties, Hispanics have abandoned the GOP in record numbers.

 

Keep empowering conservatives to push these policies, and we'll forever end up being a progressive/democratic socialistic bankrupt state.

 

YOu can take that to the bank.

[Jim in Anchorage]

You should then start with your US citizen neighbors. If you shoot them all in the head first, you eliminate the demand for the illegal drugs.

 

Much more effective.

Never Mexico's fault. Always Evil US.

[GG]

Never Mexico's fault. Always Evil US.

 

Reaching aren't we?

 

You're the one who advocates shooting people who break US laws. Take a walk down your block then, and shoot anyone doing a bong hit, snorting coke or taking meth. Then we can turn our attention to Mexico.

Edited March 6, 2012 by GG

[3rdnlng]

Reaching aren't we?

 

You're the one who advocates shooting people who break US laws. Take a walk down your block then, and shoot anyone doing a bong hit, snorting coke or taking meth. Then we can turn our attention to Mexico.

 

Hey, DCTom is part of this board. Why do you want him shot? Maybe the ones that lie and suggest Mexicans should be shot in the head should get to explain how they would handle this.

[GG]

Hey, DCTom is part of this board. Why do you want him shot? Maybe the ones that lie and suggest Mexicans should be shot in the head should get to explain how they would handle this.

 

AFAIK, he's probably the only one on this board who hasn't even taken an illicit substance. Maybe because the 'scribed meds are too good.

 

But since you brought it up, it seems that the only people in this thread who have discussed possible solutions to the migrant problem are the ones who dislike the idea of Mexicans getting shot in the head.

 

Your move, Spasky.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Reaching aren't we?

 

You're the one who advocates shooting people who break US laws. Take a walk down your block then, and shoot anyone doing a bong hit, snorting coke or taking meth. Then we can turn our attention to Mexico.

Right. Pusher same as junkie. And Mexico is the pusher man. They love the money.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Jim in Anchorage

[3rdnlng]

AFAIK, he's probably the only one on this board who hasn't even taken an illicit substance. Maybe because the 'scribed meds are too good.

 

But since you brought it up, it seems that the only people in this thread who have discussed possible solutions to the migrant problem are the ones who dislike the idea of Mexicans getting shot in the head.

 

Your move, Spasky.

 

Whoa, I dislike Mexicans being shot in the head and I have addressed possible solutions to the "migrant" (actually illegal alien)problem. Is it that we just have different approaches and you are being intolerant?

[GG]

Whoa, I dislike Mexicans being shot in the head and I have addressed possible solutions to the "migrant" (actually illegal alien)problem. Is it that we just have different approaches and you are being intolerant?

 

Try again in English please after you master comprehension.

 

Right. Pusher same as junkie. And Mexico is the pusher man. They love the money.

OK if the pusher and junkies are the same, why not fix the problem at home? It's closer and easier, right? Go ahead start with eliminating demand for illegal drugs.

[3rdnlng]

Try again in English please after you master comprehension.

 

 

OK if the pusher and junkies are the same, why not fix the problem at home? It's closer and easier, right? Go ahead start with eliminating demand for illegal drugs.

 

Explain yourself. I thought I was rather clear.

[GG]

Explain yourself. I thought I was rather clear.

Your solution was an Adamesque let's all get along trope along with the standard secure the border first line. That's not a solution that's worked nor will work.

 

Fix the demand side and supply will take care of itself. Be it workers or drugs. GOP continues to be on the wrong side of both issues.

[3rdnlng]

Your solution was an Adamesque let's all get along trope along with the standard secure the border first line. That's not a solution that's worked nor will work.

 

Fix the demand side and supply will take care of itself. Be it workers or drugs. GOP continues to be on the wrong side of both issues.

 

Any solution that doesn't include securing the border above all else will just make it more of the same. I'm not saying that reducing the demand or illegality isn't appropriate but the border has to be secure.

[GG]

Any solution that doesn't include securing the border above all else will just make it more of the same. I'm not saying that reducing the demand or illegality isn't appropriate but the border has to be secure.

 

Make it more of the same of what?

[3rdnlng]

Make it more of the same of what?

 

Do you not agree that we have an ongoing problem with illegal aliens crossing our border? Do you think that is a good thing? Do you think that the pressure they put on our hospitals and social services is not overwhelming? Do you think that more "anchor babies" are a good thing? Do you think that some of these illegals come from the middle east with intentions of causing this country harm? We have failed to secure our borders since the amnesty of the mid 80's even though it has been promised. No more horseshit and promises. Secure the border!

[GG]

Do you not agree that we have an ongoing problem with illegal aliens crossing our border? Do you think that is a good thing? Do you think that the pressure they put on our hospitals and social services is not overwhelming? Do you think that more "anchor babies" are a good thing? Do you think that some of these illegals come from the middle east with intentions of causing this country harm? We have failed to secure our borders since the amnesty of the mid 80's even though it has been promised. No more horseshit and promises. Secure the border!

 

Are you seriously using a chain email spam as the basis of a real discussion?

[3rdnlng]

Are you seriously using a chain email spam as the basis of a real discussion?

 

 

What are you talking about? You don't think there is a serious cost incurred in illegal immigration?

[GG]

What are you talking about? You don't think there is a serious cost incurred in illegal immigration?

 

Did you come up with those talking points on your own, or through an email that's been spamming inboxes over the last decade?

 

As expected, you asked the wrong question.

 

Of course there are serious costs incurred in illegal immigration. But the real questions should be, are those costs necessary? How much of the costs are self-imposed by dumb policies? Is there a better way to handle and reduce those costs? And the biggie, what's the true cost/benefit analysis of solving immigration?

 

Until GOP wingers face up to the economic, political and demographic realities of their head in the sand stance on immigration, they'll hand over the election to Obama and whoever follows him.

[3rdnlng]

Did you come up with those talking points on your own, or through an email that's been spamming inboxes over the last decade?

 

As expected, you asked the wrong question.

 

Of course there are serious costs incurred in illegal immigration. But the real questions should be, are those costs necessary? How much of the costs are self-imposed by dumb policies? Is there a better way to handle and reduce those costs? And the biggie, what's the true cost/benefit analysis of solving immigration?

 

Until GOP wingers face up to the economic, political and demographic realities of their head in the sand stance on immigration, they'll hand over the election to Obama and whoever follows him.

 

No, I came up with those thoughts on my own and yes I've seen the email. There is also an email with every number sourced. Nothing changes the fact that the border needs to become secure though. I'm just of the opinion that if we don't make that the necessary first step then it won't get done.

[GG]

No, I came up with those thoughts on my own and yes I've seen the email. There is also an email with every number sourced. Nothing changes the fact that the border needs to become secure though. I'm just of the opinion that if we don't make that the necessary first step then it won't get done.

 

 

So, you have a 50+ yr history of trying to secure the southern border, as I imagine you don't have an issue with the unsecured northern border. You have a 40+ yr history on the War on Drugs. How's that worked out?

 

After a certain point of recognizing futility, you really should look at alternatives, such as the root causes of why there's a steady migration north - and looking at how much the US contributes to the flow vs Latam's own issues. But the bottom line is that the US has a labor problem at the lower end, and it won't get fixed by availing those jobs to US born. US has a labor problem in engineering & sciences, and it won't get fixed by availing those jobs to US born, because high school grads are drawn to getting a masters in extinct languages. US has a drug problem and it won't get fixed by putting up a fence.

 

For a party that preaches spending restraints and cost benefit analyses, GOP suddenly falls blind on fixing immigration.

[Magox]

No, I came up with those thoughts on my own and yes I've seen the email. There is also an email with every number sourced. Nothing changes the fact that the border needs to become secure though. I'm just of the opinion that if we don't make that the necessary first step then it won't get done.

I just hope that policy makers won't be as rigid as your belief when it comes to this issue. My guess is that Romney wouldn't. There are two possible outcomes, one a alot rosier than the other.

 

Either

 

1) Rubio or Martinez the gov out of New Mexico gets added to the ticket, and adopts a more inclusive tone, one that would attract more latinos come November. That poll that came out yesterday, that showed a 70% to 14% advantage for Obama, inside of that poll, approximately a third of the 70% said they would consider voting for Romney if he were to add a Latino to the ticket. Thats approximately 23%, you add that with the 14% that he has, and maybe another 40% of undecided Latinos which was 16%, then you reach above George Bush's latino voters of 08 of around 43-44%. That's almost a 30% net swing.

 

Considering that many races could go neck and neck throughout the country that swing could very well make the difference.

 

2) Or no latino gets added to the ticket, Romney tries to shift to the middle during the general elections, but most latinos won't buy what he's selling and will come off as phony. If those numbers come below 20% of the total Latino vote during the election (McCain had 31%) then most likely Obama wins. Which virtually guarantees that during his presidency he makes a hard push to pass through the Dream Act, BUT UNDER HIS TERMS.

 

a) it Passes and Obama becomes the president who actually achieved comprehensive immigration reform. He becomes a huge favorite of Latinos and secures the Latino vote for quite some time. (not a likely scenario)

 

b) it doesn't pass, but Conservatives use inflammatory rhetoric and cite violence, destruction of property, drug smuggling as road blocks to passing this bill and insist on a Fence and "protect borders first" mantra. In which Latinos more then ever will continue to move massively towards Democrats. (the more likely scenario)

 

 

What people don't understand is that the Latino voter is a good fit for Conservatives on a few key issues. Generally speaking they are socially conservative people and that right there is a strong base to build off of. Central and SouthAmerican Latinos are generally anti leftist, so thats another area that they could have in common.

 

Conservatives are gonna have to move more towards the Latino voter either the more inclusive way or the painful one, which means more lost elections until they wake up to the fact that they have to adopt a new policy.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Magox