You must be joking. Prop. 187 was about "illegal immigrants," not Hispanics. It applied to illegal immigrants of every color and background. It was also approved by a state that voted for Obama --so it was hardly a referendum driven exclusively by Republicans. Furthermore, outlawing illegal immigrants from attending state-funded public schools is not an "attack" on anyone--it's a defense of the taxpayers' money and the laws of the state and the nation. Weak stuff. Got anything else?
California voted for Reagan twice and then GHW Bush, as well they elected republican governors. Southern California was solidly in the R column, enough to outweigh the "liberal" northern part of the state. The hispanic vote was largely in favor of republicans nationwide. What's changed? The governors went after "illegal immigrants" with such a fervor that they drove the hispanic voters to the Democratic Party. Like it or not, the "legal" immigrants empathize with the "illegals" because they're family, maybe some were "illegal" at one point themselves, and the general rousting of people because they might look like the "illegal" immigrants obviously didn't sit well. Sending people into hispanic neighborhoods to ask to see peoples' papers smacks of the ghestapo. You may not appreciate it because it's never happened to you, but you can at least try to see it from these peoples' point of view. Prop 187 is a disgrace, and I believe it's unconstitutional. States and the Feds have literal and strict constructionist type obligations to "Persons," a class of people that extends beyond actual citizens. There's good reason for these obligations, or the USA wouldn't at all be the kind of place we'd want it to be - land of the free, home of the brave. Liberty is a Blessing (endowed by our Creator), not a Privilege (a right of citizenship). I don't see how anyone who's followed politics hasn't watched the republican establishment spend hundreds of millions of dollars pushing anti-gay marriage legislation and ballot propositions to be used both to harm a group of people (what happened to love the sinner?) and as an issue for political gain. The "will of the people" in these things is largely irrelevant. We're not a democracy, we're a republic and the difference is profound and properly thought out. In a democracy, the "will of the people" could mean slavery and worse - the minorities would have no protection against an oppressive majority. In a republic, we elect representatives to govern and those people should study the issues and do the right things even if it's against the "will of the people" and especially protect those minorities against those majorities.
If the U.S. Immigration service and the law enforcement agencies of this country were doing their job, we wouldn't even need something like Prop. 187. However, as it is, these kinds of laws are needed to protect lawful citizens and defend the integrity of the country. Are you aware that Mexico itself has a strict border policy on its SOUTHERN border??? They have armed guards stationed there to prevent people from sneaking in from Guatemala and other countries south of them. Of course, on their northern border it's wide open, since they enjoy the revenue that their illegal citizens in the U.S. are sending back to them. Meanwhile, many hospitals along our southern border are shutting down permanently due to illegal immigration, our tax burden is increased tremendously, gang warfare is growing, etc., etc. I won't go into the many problems associated with illegal immigration, but suffice it to say that they are huge. There have been books written on the subject. If the Republican governors are helping to enforce laws against illegal immigration, good for them! That is their duty as elected public officials. The idea that we should turn a blind eye to this problem because some percentage of the population will vote for the other party is ridiculous. That's called putting your party before your country.
Writing shitty songs that amount to "I DONT WANNA SEE NO DAMN FURRREN LANGUAGES COS THIS IS AMERICA" doesn't exactly help the situation, now does it? Do you know of any republicans suggesting ANY other solution besides closing off the border to deal with this problem?
Are you arguing that closing the border isn't necessary to stop illegal immigration? Do they just beam themselves Star Trek style into the US?
I don't know about republicans, but I'm a fan of just enforcing the solutions/laws that we've already come up with as a country, rather than try to re-regulate something. I'm all for teaching americans foreign languages. I speak 2 (working on 2 more) and it's helped me with a number of experiences I'd never be able to do otherwise. But to take tax money, and use it for the convenience of people who shouldn't be here anyway? The fact that there is a "problem" means that something should be done, right?
So it does boil down to Mexicans being the problem, according to you. We have no strict border policies with Canada, and a much bigger border there. White people, come on in, but if your skin is brown we don't want you. The immigration service should be disbanded altogether. The immigration laws have always been used for racist purposes. Google the "Anti-Asian Immigration Act" if you doubt me. Talk about pulling up the ladder after you... I have news for you, this place wasn't too good for your forefathers, nor is it too good for anyone else who wants to be here.
We don't have that kind of border with Canada because there aren't millions of Canucks streaming into North Dakota looking to cut the line on a better life. I have zero problem with legal immigration. I have a huge problem with illegal immigration. And calling someone you don't know a racist for being against open borders is frankly ignorant.
I'm calling the politicians who pass the immigration laws racist. And there are plenty of Canadians who stay here illegally.
before this runs into a "my anecdote disproves your anecdote" area, can I pose these questions to the members at large here? Would enforcement of already-existing immigration laws help our existing economic situation? Do you care about any potential negative impact to people who have been illegal immigrants for a while if our policies are enforced? Do you believe the country (its citizens and lawmakers) should? Why would you want your tax dollar to pay for a program that is available to a Canadian/Russian/Mexican/etc. illegal immigrant?
Compared to those who come from south of the border? Besides, the border is only loosely defended along the 49th parallel. Try getting across from New England to the Great Lakes. It's even a bitch getting from Windsor to Detroit, and they're practically one urban area.
I don't see the point in keeping people who want to be here out. We have no more claim to this place than the people who lived here for centuries before Columbus (re)discovered the New World. If we were smart about it, we'd figure out that they can be taxed enough to pull their own weight.
I don't either. I can't accept, however, those who decide to cut in line by crossing the border illegally. Plenty of people take the legal route. They shouldn't be penalized because of the illegal immigration problem we currently have, and those illegal immigrants are crowding them out as the INS now has to limit the number of immigrants. But I understand if you don't belive in nation states or borders.
I do believe in nation states and borders. People who are mexican citizens are mexican citizens while within our borders. They're not cutting in line unless they're somehow given citizen status, which I do not suggest at all. I also recognize things like Texas and California were once part of Mexico; that people come and go from these places isn't a surprise, nor does it make any sense to restrict them. Otherwise, this is supposed to be a free country, so let's be a free country. I don't see what the "problem" is.
