LA City Council Votes to Boycott Arizona

[74Hunter]

The bolded isn't entirely true. The hispanic vote has gone more democratic lately because they feel that the democratic party is more sympathetic to their needs/less latent racism than the republican party. (I'm not saying I agree with that.) However, in general, hispanics probably trend more conservative. Mexico, for example, is about 87% Catholic. Those people will have some serious issues with the pro-choice democrats and other traditionally left talking points.

I don't buy this statement. I don't have any statistics to prove my point, and you may be able to dispute what I am about to say, but I had the understanding tha that Catholics tend to be Democrat. Most of the Catholics I know personally tend to vote Democrat, even though they seem to expouse contrary beliefs.

[carlfense]

The bolded isn't entirely true. The hispanic vote has gone more democratic lately because they feel that the democratic party is more sympathetic to their needs/less latent racism than the republican party. (I'm not saying I agree with that.) However, in general, hispanics probably trend more conservative. Mexico, for example, is about 87% Catholic. Those people will have some serious issues with the pro-choice democrats and other traditionally left talking points.

I don't buy this statement. I don't have any statistics to prove my point, and you may be able to dispute what I am about to say, but I had the understanding tha that Catholics tend to be Democrat. Most of the Catholics I know personally tend to vote Democrat, even though they seem to expouse contrary beliefs.

Here's a good breakdown of the last few elections. link

 

It's gone either way . . . the white Catholic vote favored Gore over Bush in 2000, and Bush over Gore in 2004. The hispanic Catholic vote was solidly democratic in both (65% and 58% respectively).

 

I think a lot will depend on the emphasis placed on hot button issues like abortion. If the Republicans can make this a focus they will gain hispanic votes because hispanics tend to be anti-abortion. To attract hispanic votes the Republican party has to walk a fine line between emphasizing attractive issues like being pro-life . . . and still appearing to be very tough on illegal immigration so as to not lose their conservative base. Similarly, the Democratic party has to attract moderate/right votes by appearing to come down hard on illegal immigration . . . without offending their current hispanic voters. It's a mess.

 

The following is a very interesting article on McCain's attempts to attract hispanic votes: link From the article:

A September Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute poll found incoming Hispanics don't have attachments to the Democratic Party and are pro-life on abortion.

[74Hunter]

The bolded isn't entirely true. The hispanic vote has gone more democratic lately because they feel that the democratic party is more sympathetic to their needs/less latent racism than the republican party. (I'm not saying I agree with that.) However, in general, hispanics probably trend more conservative. Mexico, for example, is about 87% Catholic. Those people will have some serious issues with the pro-choice democrats and other traditionally left talking points.

I don't buy this statement. I don't have any statistics to prove my point, and you may be able to dispute what I am about to say, but I had the understanding tha that Catholics tend to be Democrat. Most of the Catholics I know personally tend to vote Democrat, even though they seem to expouse contrary beliefs.

Here's a good breakdown of the last few elections. link

 

It's gone either way . . . the white Catholic vote favored Gore over Bush in 2000, and Bush over Gore in 2004. The hispanic Catholic vote was solidly democratic in both (65% and 58% respectively).

 

I think a lot will depend on the emphasis placed on hot button issues like abortion. If the Republicans can make this a focus they will gain hispanic votes because hispanics tend to be anti-abortion. To attract hispanic votes the Republican party has to walk a fine line between emphasizing attractive issues like being pro-life . . . and still appearing to be very tough on illegal immigration so as to not lose their conservative base. Similarly, the Democratic party has to attract moderate/right votes by appearing to come down hard on illegal immigration . . . without offending their current hispanic voters. It's a mess.

 

The following is a very interesting article on McCain's attempts to attract hispanic votes: link From the article:

A September Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute poll found incoming Hispanics don't have attachments to the Democratic Party and are pro-life on abortion.

Interesting. Seems like Catholics deal with internal conflict when it comes to voting.

[sarge87]

I'm not a big Obama fan, but I think this is step in the right direction. I dont know what the legality of this is, but it seems to be a step in the right direction. Link If anything the AZ law has forced the hand of government to do something.

It's just a window dressing PR stunt. A 1000 troops will make no difference.

 

Bush sent 6,000 ANG troops four years ago as a stop-gap measure to bide time to get border agents trained. The troops were basically employed as secretaries and glorified Jiffy Lube workers for the ICE motor pool.

Thanks for that sarge. I remember W sent some over there, but couldn't figure out how many, and I too thought they pretty much made coffee all day. If there was only some sort of wall type device we could build... hmmmm

Absolutely. I'm all for building a wall/strengthening border patrols. That seems like a no-brainer to me.

You're preaching to the choir.

 

But the problem is that neither Republicans or Democrats on The Hill want to do anything about this. I take that back. Some of the ones who have been vocal about the problem have been branded by the media and other illegal immigrant proponents as racists.

 

Some Republicans would rather take a pass because Agriculture and Business like the cheap labor. Democrats take a pass because they want that 20-60 million strong future voting block after amnesty to keep them in power for generations.

I sympathize with illegals wanting better life for themselves and their families but this can't continue to go on unchecked. We are importing a new slavery class with little vocational skills and minute education. How does broadening the poverty class do anything for the US except increasing the demand for government subsidies? Why isn't the US government putting pressure on Mexico to improve conditions for their people instead of letting it's president lecture us about racial profiling in the People's House to a standing ovation by those who I will not mention for the sake of not getting a banhammer lowered?

The bolded isn't entirely true. The hispanic vote has gone more democratic lately because they feel that the democratic party is more sympathetic to their needs/less latent racism than the republican party. (I'm not saying I agree with that.) However, in general, hispanics probably trend more conservative. Mexico, for example, is about 87% Catholic. Those people will have some serious issues with the pro-choice democrats and other traditionally left talking points.

I will agree that Hispanics tend to be socially conservative but politically they are populists because most governments south of the border tend to lean more socialist than capitalist.

[suh_fan93]

Not all laws are created equally. Let's see if Arizona's recent laws pass their impending constitutional challenges before we get too worried about other states' reactions to it.

 

And while we're talking about federally granted rights, let's remember that federal law (specifically, Title VII) prohibits laws that have a disparate impact on a group based on their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, pregnancy and/or marital status. Arizona's latest law is dangerously close to that disparate impact, if not outright over the line.

 

I totally agree.

 

 

There is also a group of musicians/bands who are now willingly boycotting Arizona also.

 

 

Kanye West, Rage, Sonic Youth Rally Against Arizona

 

 

Top artists form "Sound Strike" to protest state's controversial law targeting undocumented residents

 

By Daniel Kreps

Rolling Stone.com

May 27, 2010 9:01 AM EDT

 

Kanye West, Sonic Youth, Rage Against the Machine and many more artists rallied to boycott Arizona after the state passed a controversial law that encourages police officers to target residents they "reasonably suspect" to be undocumented. Rage Against the Machine's Zack de la Rocha is leading the boycott, dubbed "The Sound Strike," which finds the large group of artists refusing to perform in Arizona as long as the law is in place.

 

"Fans of our music, our stories, our films and our words can be pulled over and harassed every day because they are brown or black, or for the way they speak, or for the music they listen to," de la Rocha said of the racial profiling promoted in law SB 1070. "People who are poor like some of us used to be could be forced to live in a constant state of fear while just doing what they can to find work and survive. This law opens the door for them to be shaked down, or even worse, detained and deported while just trying to travel home from school, from home to work, or when they just roll out with their friends. Some of us grew up dealing with racial profiling, but this law takes it to a whole new low. If other states follow the direction of the Arizona government, we could be headed towards a pre-civil rights era reality."

 

Other musicians who have joined in the Sound Strike include Serj Tankian, Conor Oberst, Tenacious D, Spank Rock, Joe Satriani, Cypress Hill, filmmaker Michael Moore and many more. (Check out the full list of artists and sign the Sound Strike's petition demanding the repeal of SB 1070 at their official Website.) The Sound Strike is also encouraging other artists to join the cause, so expect so more acts to align themselves with the Artists Call to Boycott Arizona movement in the coming weeks.

[HUSKER 37]

.... My problems with this law aren't about it's effects on illegal immigrants. If they are illegal, deport them. My problems with this law are the potential for racial profiling and the requirement of carrying identification papers by people...

 

I realize we're supposed to be able to recite the company line..but..What's so wrong with racial profiling?

 

I was a little upset with a 911 operator asking me about the race of a suspected drunk driver that I was trying to get off the road Monday, but maybe she was just trying to get information to help better identify the individual...or maybe it would benefit the investigating officer to know ahead of time if the guy was Irish, (he might be a violent drunk).

 

I would think that if I were visiting another country, or especially invading another country, that I'd have some sort of papers with me at all times to help with my cover. I double dare you to travel to Mexico without ID.

[huskertim]

[quote name='knapplc' date='13 May 2010 - 08:19 AM' timestamp='1273756795' post='603

 

And while we're talking about federally granted rights, let's remember that federal law (specifically, Title VII) prohibits laws that have a disparate impact on a group based on their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, pregnancy and/or marital status. Arizona's latest law is dangerously close to that disparate impact, if not outright over the line.

 

 

BTW, since when did the feds start granting rights, if they have that authority, then they can take them away too. Seriously, you have to understand that rights are inate and the role of the government is to protect those rights for it's citizenry. Notice, your above list does not specificy immigration status, and for a reason. If our constitution is said to apply to all people everywhere, then why in the hell aren't my brothers in North Korea being defended from tyranny? Why do ny brothers in China suffer from cencorship? Yes, we all have equal rights, but our government is established to protect ours, wouldn't it be nice if everyone could say that about their own?

[knapplc]

What did you do to that quote? That's not what I wrote, and the link goes to some thread about interviewing Houston Nutt back in 2007.

[CornHOLIO]