Tweet
An article in the Washington Post describes in detail how Bertica Cabrera Morris, a Cuban-American political operative in Florida, is organizing rallies for Mitt Romney in Florida's Spanish-speaking communities. Admittedly, some Hispanics in Florida might not care a great deal about immigration as an issue. Puerto Ricans, of course, are US citizens by birth. Cuban immigrants do not have to worry about many of the things that other Spanish-speaking immigrants do.
But Florida is a large and diverse state, with many immigrants from Latin-America who care a great deal about immigration. And what Romney says about immigration in Florida will be heard all over the country, not just in that state. This is why it is so difficult to imagine how anyone identified with any Spanish-speaking community, or communities, could possible support, let alone work for, Romney. Of course, money might be a factor, but this would not explain the evidently sincere conviction and zeal with which Ms. Morris is making great efforts on Romney's behalf.
Romney has made no secret about his extreme hard line on immigration, and has not budged an inch from it, even in Florida. He still supports harsh state anti-immigrant laws, still wants to deport every single one of the 11 million unauthorized men, women and children in America, and still says he would veto even the tiny step toward tolerance and humanity toward minority immigrants that the DREAM Act represents.
True, Newt is not much better than Romney on immigration, but at least he is pretending to be, which may be better than nothing. Therefore it seems completely inexplicable bow any member of an Hispanic, or other minority immigrant community in America, could possibly support Romney, let alone actively work on his behalf.
Surely, no rational person would give any weight to Romney's nonsense about his father's having been born in Mexico, as if that made the slightest difference, or his statement that he "loves" immigration. I have no doubt that he does - even if the immigrants whom he supports (he hasn't said much about who they are) turn out to be mainly hedge fund owners and venture (am I spelling "venture" correctly?) capitalists.
Thereore, it is hard to imagine how any minority immigrant spokesperson (self-appointed or otherwise) could support Romney - unless, that is, one looks at the alternatives. Newt Gingrich, I have already mentioned. But what about Barack Obama? Now, we may understand why some minority immigrant representatives might support Romney. Being openly attacked may be preferable to being deceived.
What is missing in this picture is any indication that leaders in Hispanic, Asian, or other minority immigrant communities are taking a stand on principle, as for example, the Tea Party claims to be doing on budget and tax issues (not to mention hard line immigration policies of its own). Does this mean that Hispanics and other minorities who care about immigration should form their own movement - a "Tequila Party", perhaps? This should be self-evident. It is hard to see any other logical choice.
However, that is never the entire picture. Yes, anti-immigrant platforms matter to people like me but so do other things like jobs, for example, and a plan to improve the economy. However nasty it gets, those things matter a lot and personally, if I could vote, I'd vote for Sarkozy rather than the Socialist candidate and hope that once the elections passed that people will calm down and things will get better.
My .02.
If today's hard line right wing neo-cons had been in power during that fateful October weekend, ID readers would not be debating about immigration policy today. No one on this planet would be here to debate about anything.
On the other hand, Haitian immigrants have, by and large, not counting the earthquake survivors' TPS, had the worst treatment of any immigrants to the US in recent times. Their dictators have come from the right, not the left, and their color is darker than that of the majority of Cubans.
And you are exactly correct in your description of my position: I do indeed think that US immigration policy is far too heavily weighted toward what is of benefit for the intending immigrant rather than the benefits (if any) for the United States and Americans. Does not every country look at immigration in that regard? Even from the very beginnings of the country, immigrants were brought here and screened for what good they could add to the existing polity. Immigration was never at any time some sort of national "charity" extended by the US to less-fortunate citizens of other countries. You know that, Roger. You are an educated man yet sometimes your arguments sould like you just rolled off a turnip truck.
And I would also remind you, as again I'm sure you know, that there is a definite difference between an immigrant and a settler...between a resident and an outsider, between a citizen and a foreigner. The fact that one's ancestors arrived here before this was a country and have been here ever since somehow, I would say, disqualifies one from the label "immigrant" I mean, how long does one have to live in his country before he is rightly considered a native? By your reasoning, no one is a native of anywhere...everyone is an immigrant, even, I suppose, a modern Greek living in Athens whose ancestors after all did indeed immigrate into the Greek peninsula a mere 3000 years ago! Still, apparently according to your and Yang's definition, the man is still an immigrant! Can you possibly not see the absurdity of your position?