Rand Paul: We Must Keep Out Illegals Before We Legalize Them All
I’m one of the Republicans who favors immigration reform, but I think that any legalization of those who are here illegally should be dependent upon border security, and unfortunately we’re hearing from the Gang of Eight they want the opposite. They want legalization not dependent on border security, but I think most conservatives in the country want to see the border secured, and then they’re willing to go ahead and give documentation to workers that are here illegally. But we can’t do it if we’re not going to secure the border first.
Let’s examine this statement to see if it makes sense. I think what Paul is saying is, we must secure the border because illegal immigration to this country is intolerable. Then, we must legalize all the illegal immigrants.
Yes, that is perfectly coherent. Illegal immigrants are so undesirable that we need to keep them out and also legalize all the ones who are here. That makes total sense to me. You?
P.S. I’m a “secure the borders first” guy because it appears that position makes amnesty unpalatable to Democrats and thus less likely to pass — not because “secure the borders first” makes any kind of logical sense whatsoever.
P.P.S. And the idea that Republicans need to pass amnesty for our own political well being is a crock, as evidenced by the fact that this idea is pushed, hard, by leftists all over the country. Hey, leftists? The day I actually believe that you care about the GOP’s ability to attract voters, is the day NEVER.
I want to see immigration reform. To me that involves changing the immigration laws that Ted “the drunk killer” Kennedy put in place. Immigration should be allowed for people who can make America a better place. Those who are welfare queens should get the boot. I’m for getting rid of the anchor baby laws. I don’t think families should be “reunited” in the USA. Let them be reunited in their own country. Strengthen the border and throw out the illegals. Have a guest worker plan. Limit H1-B visas, insure student visa’s don’t become green cards. Stop the federal government giving scholarships to foreign students. AND yes, all the municipalities that are “open”, reign down the federal government terror that Arizona received.
jason (61a66d) — 6/19/2013 @ 7:46 amEvery time I sit back and think that all politicians, regardless of educational background, are stupid, one that I actually like proves me correct.
That statement is the POLAR OPPOSITE of what true conservatives want, Rand. Stop pandering and do what’s BEST FOR THE COUNTRY.
© Sponge (8110ec) — 6/19/2013 @ 7:51 amHispanics are not likely to be a GOP majority block ever, unless the racial mix in the USA shifts radically to whites being a relatively small minority with a large hispanic majority.
But then, the politics of the GOP would have to shift left.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/19/2013 @ 8:23 amI wrote my Senators and suggested they amend the gang of eight bill to include a provision that no federal funds are appropriated to permit the DoJ to sue to prevent states from enforcing US immigration law and border security. Or whatever way they see fit to prevent the feds from interfering with the states enforcing US immigration and border security law, or any state law that mirrors exactly the language of the laws as written by Congress.
States can build border fences per the law passed by Congress 7 years ago. State law enforcement can turn people around at the border and send them back.
I don’t see a constitutional problem with it. Federal law is still paramount over state law. States can’t exceed the provisions of federal law. States routinely ship prisoners their own prisons to finish the prison terms in another. Why can’t Louisiana send illegal aliens who violated immigration laws there to Texas?
Of course it’ll never pass because the Democrats refuse to enforce immigration law and border security. And unfortunately the Senate Rino herd as well. But I can’t imagine anything that would expose the hypocrisy more sharply. Marco Rubio says we need to legalize illegal aliens so they can pay for border security. States like Arizona and Texas say they don’t need their money. So the feds can save the money they would spend on suing such states and it’s a win win.
Right?
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/19/2013 @ 9:32 amWith 70+ votes on hand, Rand Paul can say whatever he thinks will sound good to whomever is listening. Unserious.
At least he’s not co-sponsoring his old man’s proposed joint resolution to repeal the Organia Peace Treaty which created the Klingon Neutral Zone.
nk (875f57) — 6/19/2013 @ 9:41 amJason @1, I agree with your overall premise and most of he items on your list. But this struck me as strange.
People who can qualify for H1-B visas are exactly the kind of people we want to come here. Rather than limit the program I’d loosen the rules for them to petition to change their immigration status.
Similarly for student visas. We want to ensure those don’t turn into green cards. EU countries, the Swiss, the Australians, New Zealanders love that about us. They go to University job fairs, some of those countries have opened permanent recruiting offices, precisely to poach foreign students studying at US universities and colleges that have patented inventions while working toward their degrees or otherwise demonstrated real merit. Particularly the STEM students; Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math.
We don’t want them to turn their student visas into green cards?
I agree our student visa program requires a total rethink, especially after the Boston Marathon Bombing. We learn the Tsarnaev brothers’ inner circle included people who were let in on student visas (one was let in even though his visa had expired) who weren’t going to school. They had flunked or dropped out.
WTFO!
If we’re going to have a category of visa for students, we should screen those applicants to approve the kind of students we’d want to turn those visas into green cards. Not pot smoking dead heads who can’t cut it at Podunk U who out of boredom or whatever that sticking it to the man with a little ad libbed jihad sounds kinda cool. Otherwise, what’s the point?
I mean other than throwing a bone to the libs who run the asylums and make money for four years or however long long the student lasts in return for voting Democrat.
I get that.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/19/2013 @ 9:59 amThe American public education system is churning out a large and steady supply of low or unskilled labor every year. It’s crazy talk to believe we have to import foreign workers and depress American wages while American workers sit idle.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:17 amExcept that it takes five of them to do the work of one Mexican, daleyrocks.
nk (875f57) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:19 amDuh!
askeptic (b8ab92) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:23 amnk, that’s because an illegal alien has to work for her money if she wants a knock-off Prada purse. A poor US citizen can pawn her free Obamaphone.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:23 amComment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:17 am
But enough about college grads.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:26 amComment by nk (875f57) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:19 am
So, repeal the Min-Wage law.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:27 amWho’re you gonna get to work for you, in any job worth doing, for $7.25/hr before FICA, FUTA, and State tax? High school summer jobs, maybe. The minimum wage law is a red herring.
nk (875f57) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:34 amOK, belay my last on the student visa program.
Via Weasel Zippers we get this story from the New Hampshire Union Leader:
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130619/NEWS07/130619169/0/SPORTS07
The people running Bloomberg’s anti-gun campaign are of the same ilk as the people running the student visa program.
Scrap the whole thing.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:49 am“Who’re you gonna get to work for you, in any job worth doing, for $7.25/hr before FICA, FUTA, and State tax? High school summer jobs, maybe. The minimum wage law is a red herring.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:34 am”
I have often had to start over at minimum wage. You work two jobs until you can work your way up. As a manager I saw many good people wanting minimum wage work as these jobs got them into the job market or would accommodate there special schedule needs. These included college students and housewives that needed to care for their husbands and children but wanted some income during the hours they were free and might need time off to run to the school or when kids were sick. Minimum wage jobs often make these concessions to get good people and many of them are exceptional employees. I have even had degreed engineers working part time for me.
The minimum wage laws have cut off many people from needed jobs, especially young people who need that first step up. When I left management and became a machinist I worked two full time jobs plus side work and made less than my previous job alone had paid. In time I ended up making more but without college you often have to start at the bottom and prove yourself. Killing these entry level jobs is a terrible idea.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:52 amWhat Machinist said.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:57 amPlus I always thought a chain gang was an idea that was ahead of its time.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/19/2013 @ 11:07 amWith big medical expenses and no insurance, I may be looking for a job myself. I would be quite happy to work for minimum wage, full or part time, if I found a job A could handle long term. I think I am a good employee, the people I have worked for seemed to think so.
These jobs have their place and pricing them out of existence helps no one but unions.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 6/19/2013 @ 11:13 amFor most younger people their first/minimum wage job and performance reviews also give future employers insight on the person’s character, flexibility, and drive and whether they should invest time and training dollars on said people. When the daughter of friends got and quit a series of min wage jobs while she was in college–because she couldn’t get along with her co-workers and all her managers were “idiots”, I knew she was going to be in for a long, tough slog in life. I was not wrong.
elissa (c7f92a) — 6/19/2013 @ 11:26 amComment by Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/19/2013 @ 10:49 am
Steve, did you hear about the Pro Gun-Control Rally held in San Bernardino CA by OFA?
askeptic (b8ab92) — 6/19/2013 @ 11:51 amThey had exactly three people show up for it – but they had 26 signs to hold.
A workable reform is this:
1. A treaty with Mexico for bilateral immigration like we have with Canada. This should allow several million immigrants annually from Mexico without regard to family ties.
2. Legalization of illegals, without the possibility of citizenship (exceptions for children and veterans).
3. Borders secured to the extent necessary. If illegal immigration is penalized and legal immigration is possible again then an impenetrable wall is hopefully not needed. A wall is an admission that your system isn’t working.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/19/2013 @ 11:59 amBTW, in the 1980’s a majority of California Hispanics voted Republican. This changed coincident with Prop 187.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/19/2013 @ 12:01 pmelissa, if I’m mistaking your meaning I apologize but I don’t understand how any young person’s prior performance reviews could tell a future employer anything.
An employer typically would never confirm or deny anything in those reviews out of liability concerns. I’ve never been fired from a job, which is something an employer might confirm, but in my experience the only thing my past employers will confirm as a matter of policy are dates of employment.
I totally agree that if someone’s employment history shows they can’t keep a job that’s a huge red flag.
Random thoughts on the job interview; the key to the job interview is understanding the employer only has three questions and only one has to do with the applicants qualifications. Can the applicant do the job?
The other two are:
Is the applicant actually serious about doing the job?
And:
Will the applicant work with me?
Obviously not if she can’t get along with her coworkers and thinks her supervisors are idiots. You don’t really need the performance reviews. You don’t really need to be a clever interrogator. I was always amazed at what people are willing to offer up at job interviews. A simple question like “why did you leave your last job” and you all of a sudden you’re her therapist listening about how close minded and stuck up all her co-workers were.
Or even “do you have any questions for me?” And then the guys ask about how much vacation time they’re going to get or if it’s OK if they don’t start until next month because they’re still eligible for unemployment.
Oh, and if you don’t get a job offer don’t have your mom call and attempt to chew out the interviewer because junior told her the employer “promised” him he had the job. That phone call just confirms your instincts about the guy were right.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/19/2013 @ 12:05 pmI thought Ellisa nailed it nicely, as usual.
It has been a while since I was interviewing prospects but and even then many were reluctant to take risks but many would tell you good things and those who clammed up could be telling you something as well. In any case her point about rapid changes was a red flag and the reasons or excuses given could be amazingly stupid but quite informative.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 6/19/2013 @ 1:01 pm1. secure the borders… all of them.
2. throw out the illegals… all of them.
3. fix the immigration process.
in that order.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 6/19/2013 @ 1:15 pmI think “secure the borders first” makes a lot of logical sense. Look what the border fence in California did to crime rates in San Diego.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/border-barrier.htm
A fence doesn’t completely seal the border, but a 50% reduction in the crime rate and 80% reduction in illegal border crossings are wonderful things.
Tanny O'Haley (7c8811) — 6/19/2013 @ 1:31 pmSteve, I specifically meant first jobs/min wage jobs being used as lead-ins to the next better paying job. I’m sorry if that was not clear. We are not talking about junior executives moving into the executive suite here. Having “work experience” is almost a requisite to get hired out of school to a decent paying job these days. How often do we hear a young person say “they want experience but how will I ever get experience if no one will hire me?”. That’s where these min wage jobs are so invaluable. If they got a very good perf review, or a certificate of merit, or received a nice customer commendation letter, young applicants often bring that, and mention it with pride along with their resume.
Machinist, thank you. It’s been a while and it’s good to see you here.
elissa (c7f92a) — 6/19/2013 @ 1:35 pm“These jobs have their place and pricing them out of existence helps no one but unions.”
Bingo !
Mike K (dc6ffe) — 6/19/2013 @ 1:48 pmelissa your answer @27 is perfectly sensible. I didn’t understand what you meant by “and performance reviews also give future employers insight.” So I asked.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:05 pmI think what Paul is saying is, we must secure the border because illegal immigration to this country is intolerable. Then, we must legalize all the illegal immigrants.
Paul is not sayinbg illegal immigration is intolerable. He is just pandering to those who say this amnesty should not be repeated. The argument for not doing that is that that makes bad law, not that the immigration itself is bad or that there is not a case for amnesty. the whole problem is that there ia case for amnesty and there will be a case for the next batch of illegal immigrants as well.
The only way for this not to repeated is for there to be no more illegal immigrants.
He only wants to stop illegal immigration because he wants to be able to say this will not be repeated.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:17 pmI thought all this was obvious.
It’s basicallky a logic trap designed to prevent any bill from passing, since illegal immigration can never be stopped.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:18 pmHold the phone.
I’m all for the spirit of conciliation and Lord knows I don’t want to pick a fight with elissa who already doesn’t like me but I’ve gotta as since I missed this.
This is common? Where?
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:31 pm*I’ve gotta
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:32 pmasask since**Comment by elissa (c7f92a) — 6/19/2013 @ 1:35 pm*
Thank you, Ma’am. It is always a pleasure to see your comments. I have hired hundreds of entry and low level employees and dozens of new managers. You have hit it so well.
I did not put much weight on previous training or experience as I preferred to invest the time training the right person in just what I wanted. The things you mention are so important in deciding who the right person was. It was tragic how many bright young people I had to teach the basics like coming to work on time and ready to work, or treating customers and fellow employees right. It was like so many had never learned that life was not school and parents just did not care about their children enough to spend any time telling them what they would need in life. My early employers did not have to teach me honesty or responsibility, my parents did that long before I started working. Too many of my new employees had no clue and for some it was a hard and shocking lesson.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:38 pmI wonder what the bill says about future illegals. Does it propose a penalty or other method of dissuading them? Or does it appoint a new Gang of 8 to consider the problem later?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:39 pm“This is common? Where?
Comment by Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:31 pm ”
It was in my experience. That was in California. We are talking young people looking for entry level jobs here.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:40 pmI have also often been asked for a letter of recommendation. I’ve received a few as well.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:42 pm“since illegal immigration can never be stopped”
Sammy – This is basically a strawman argument, since none of the proposals call for all illegal immigration to be stopped and there is no way to verify it has been stopped. It is just a stupid way for people such as yourself to avoid discussing the issue.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:43 pmillegal immigrants are my favorite after the legal ones
happyfeet (c60db2) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:45 pm“This is common? Where?”
Steve57 – I’ve got to question your question of elissa?
Where the hell would it not be appropriate to bring special recognition you received from a customer or your employer, especially if you noted it on your resume?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:50 pmComment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/19/2013 @ 12:01 pm
That was also before the Hispanic version of ACORN started padding the voter rolls with non-existent and non-citizen voters.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 6/19/2013 @ 3:16 pm35. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:39 pm
I wonder what the bill says about future illegals. Does it propose a penalty or other method of dissuading them? Or does it appoint a new Gang of 8 to consider the problem later?
I believe all bills say nothing (except for what is routine now)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/19/2013 @ 3:32 pm“since illegal immigration can never be stopped”
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/19/2013 @ 2:43 pm
Sammy – This is basically a strawman argument, since none of the proposals call for all illegal immigration to be stopped
But the opponents of the bills are not prepared to say how much is enough or how it would be measured. They only want “more”
They say let’s enforce the law more and then maybe we can discuss amnesty.
And they argue that all the proposala are defective.
They are asking for the impossible, and they know it.
and there is no way to verify it has been stopped.
Oh more. After it has been stopped, it could start again. And if you think a president or Congress doesn’t want to enforce and is only agreeing to do so to get amnesty, then if course as soon as the trigger is hit they will let up.
What this is is a condition that will never be reached.
It is just a stupid way for people such as yourself to avoid discussing the issue.
I’m telling you all this talk of enforcement by opponents of the bill is just a way to be against any bill that legalizes people, ever.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/19/2013 @ 3:37 pmPatterico: P.S. I’m a “secure the borders first” guy because it appears that position makes amnesty unpalatable to Democrats and thus less likely to pass — not because “secure the borders first” makes any kind of logical sense whatsoever.
I rest my case.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/19/2013 @ 3:39 pmCuba and North Korea are pretty good about securing their borders—nobody gets in !
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/19/2013 @ 3:49 pmI wonder how many people know that under the McCarran Walter immigration act of 1952, anyone applying for a student visa has to convince a State Department visa issuing official that they have no intention of trying to immigrate to the United states, even legally.
If that law wasn’t changed I think that would put some people in pickle as none of them now are allowed to admit or even let someone think that they have some hopes of staying in the United States.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/19/2013 @ 4:32 pmAll visa appligations except immigrant and H1-B ask that question, Sammy, and it is grounds for exclusion if answered yes. They also ask if you are a terrorist, a Nazi, a communist, if you advocate the overthrow of the United States government by force or violent means, or are a physician intending to practice medicine in the United States.
nk (875f57) — 6/19/2013 @ 4:48 pm“But the opponents of the bills are not prepared to say how much is enough or how it would be measured. They only want “more”
They say let’s enforce the law more and then maybe we can discuss amnesty.
And they argue that all the proposala are defective.”
Sammy – All you are doing is demonstrating you have not been following any of the discussion concerning the flaws with the existing bill or proposed fixes to focus on enforcement first. Creating fantasy arguments inside a bubble does you no good.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/19/2013 @ 5:00 pm“Cuba and North Korea are pretty good about securing their borders—nobody gets in !”
ES – Israel does a pretty good job as well.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/19/2013 @ 5:01 pmThe real problem with “secure borders first” is that Obama will just certify some half-assed job have as “secure” and move on.
The immigration solution probably ought to contain some solutions other than “we’ve decided to ignore the problem.”
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/19/2013 @ 5:01 pm“I’m telling you all this talk of enforcement by opponents of the bill is just a way to be against any bill that legalizes people, ever.”
Sammy – Actually, enforcement first is the approach the American public favors by 4:1. I’m telling you. The bill supporters just ignore them.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/19/2013 @ 5:04 pmSo, what happens when Obama just gives everyone amnesty, like Carter did with the draft dodgers.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/19/2013 @ 5:34 pmI know it is nuts, but I really wish the US government would enforce the existing laws on immigration and that our representatives in Congress would actually represent the will of the governed…
WarEagle82 (2b7355) — 6/19/2013 @ 7:08 pm1. Declare actual war on Mexican drug gangs.
Rutho (a58010) — 6/19/2013 @ 7:32 pm2. Conquer Mexico destroying gangs on both sides of border in process.
3. Build fence on new 51st state’s (much shorter) southern border.
4. Dismantle most SS programs to make it less likely bludgers want to immigrate.
5. Reform immigration rules to make it much easier for *those not already in the country illegally* to gain citizenship.
Presidential election exit polls in 1984, 1988, and 1992 show strong majorities of California Hispanics voting for the Democratic candidates (pdf). My brief search didn’t turn up data for 1980.
Scrutineer (0b6bc0) — 6/19/2013 @ 7:49 pmAccording to Sammy, bill supporters have noble intentions, while people who support enforcing existing laws and border enforcement before amnesty have suspect motives. It cannot have anything to do with having been burned by false promises of enforcement in the past, it is pure bad motives.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/19/2013 @ 8:02 pmTed Cruz says that even a plurality of Hispanic Texans (46% I think he said, 35% no) want more security on the border.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/19/2013 @ 8:12 pmAnd that the Texas Hispanic population is more interested in the opportunity for legal work visas than citizenship.
==And that the Texas Hispanic population is more interested in the opportunity for legal work visas than citizenship.==
Well as with Obamacare the Dems know what’s best for those Texas Hispanics. What do they know? They will get citizenship whether they want it or not, dammit!!
elissa (7f92c3) — 6/19/2013 @ 8:18 pmI’m curious if Texas Hispanics are different than Hispanics in other parts of the country. I think they may be. It could be because they’re assimilating, or it could be because they emigrate to places with values that fit their own.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/19/2013 @ 8:36 pmWhen you say “assimilating” what do you mean more specifically, DRJ? Are you speaking of long term or near term assimilation? Learning English? That they are living in fully integrated communities with all sorts of ethnicities and cultures represented? Or something else completely? I’m curious about this because in the big city near me there are a couple of neighborhoods where Spanish is spoken almost exclusively and the schools, church services, movies, dances, radio and TV programs, food, music, sports, etc. etc., are almost exclusively Hispanic in orientation. It really seems to be its own little isolated world in many respects.
elissa (7f92c3) — 6/19/2013 @ 8:48 pmMy wife and her family came from Mexico City. They were very poor, the mother worked as a domestic from the age of twelve to support herself. She continued this after getting married so they could live in the couple’s home until the father bought a lot and built a house for the family of six. My wife’s mother walked to the store every day because she had no car and they could not afford a refrigerator. Her father was first to come to California to earn money to send back and the rest of the family came over one or two at a time but the family was broken up for years because they came legally.
They have very conservative values and all vote Republican. They are almost Puritanical in some ways with a very strong work ethic. It would be disgraceful to be on welfare. They do not identify with the inner city barrio type welfare culture that many Americans think of as Mexican or Hispanic culture. “Cholo” is a pejorative term and Mexican-American is considered something different than Mexican, corrupted with bad American values. They are suspicious of Mexican-Americans because they see many being dishonest and cheating Mexicans who trust them. They proudly call themselves Mexican but they are patriotic Americans who celebrate American holidays and are proud to be citizens. My wife is the one who bought and puts up our American flag on Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and the 4th of July. Several of her cousins have served in the military. They honor Reagan for the first amnesty but they came here legally and while they sympathize with people wanting to work they do see the unfairness of people cutting in line, so to speak. These people are more like 1950s Americans than most Americans today.
I think they are typical of what we used to think of as first generation immigrants who work hard at low level jobs and want their children to be successful Americans. My wife’s sister had two children when she came here and had to fight to keep them out of bilingual education. The oldest child, her daughter, learned English quickly and ended up an honor student. She went to college on a scholarship she earned by her achievement.
If there is a difference here in Texas from California I think it might be that there is less effort to keep different ethnic cultures Balkinized here in Texas. In California there is a lot of pressure to force conformity with your ethnic group. This does not just apply to immigrants, Texans seem much more open minded and accepting of individuality. More tolerant, if you will. I have not really seen enough to say more than that.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 6/20/2013 @ 2:31 amelissa,
Many of the Hispanics I know have the same values as non-Hispanics — basically, 1950’s era values that Machinist described above. I don’t know if they came here with those values, or if they adopted them as a part of assimilating into the Texas culture. Probably a little of both.
It’s true that many Hispanics live in Spanish-focused neighborhoods and, in Texas, even entire towns. I have a mixed reaction to this. I think it’s normal to want to live in a neighborhood that preserves your native heritage, culture and language. Furthermore, I don’t view this as a negative unless it prevents younger members of the community from integrating into the larger society, especially the workforce. (Universal public education should counteract this but, unfortunately, modern bilingual education sometimes undermines integration and assimilation.)
But this could just be a lot of social science garbage. Ultimately, I think what matters is whether people share common values. For now, I think most Texans still share a commitment to individual responsibility, hard work, religion, and pride in their State. Each is important but sometimes I think the shared pride in our State is our most important bond.
Americans used to feel this way about our country and it held us together during the rough patches. However, I think the anti-American attitude that started during the 1960’s undermined our shared pride and patriotism, had a corrosive effect on our culture, and may even have contributed to our partisan divide. I don’t see a way to recapture what we’ve lost as a nation, but I’m doing my best to preserve it in Texas. Frankly, it’s part of why I talk up Texas so much.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 4:24 amHere’s some more of my social science garbage: Sometimes I wonder if the reason places like Texas and Alaska are conservative is because they have harsh climates and aren’t as attractive as places like California. As a result, people who emigrate to Texas and Alaska realize they have to overcome hardship to succeed, while people who move to California see it as a place where life is easier and more pleasant. If so, they would attract different types of people.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 4:48 amYou’ve got to question my question?
It was a real question. If you count my time in Navy recruiting I must have interviewed hundreds of people over the course of the past 25 years and not once has anyone given me a copy of their performance review or some special recognition from a customer.
I don’t even know what you mean by special recognition from a customer. And I’m in the hospitality business at the present.
I’m astounded to find out this is going on. But like I said my experience is limited to a few hundred interviews in three states. Oklahoma, Texas, and Kali. Is this a Chicagoland thing? Does the special recognition from the customer count more if it’s signed by Rahm Emanuel?
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/20/2013 @ 6:28 amOne way Texas Hispanics can be different, I’ve found, is that Tejas successfully seceded from Mexico. Lots of people in various places tried. Few succeeded. I believe in addition to Texas there was a Republic of the Yucatan for a while.
Point being in Texas I encounter people of Hispanic origin who hate being categorized as Mexican American. It’s like wiping out their family history. Their ancestors risked and sometimes gave their lives in a successful revolution to get rid of Mexico. And now we’re calling them Mexican Americans?
Well, not the we that includes me.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/20/2013 @ 6:40 amThat something might be outside your experience hardly precludes its existence, Steve.
nk (875f57) — 6/20/2013 @ 6:44 amThey have very conservative values and all vote Republican. They are almost Puritanical in some ways with a very strong work ethic. It would be disgraceful to be on welfare.
I’ve long mused about what would happen if a magic wand could be waved over some of the most dysfunctional communities throughout America — using the city of Detroit (per below) as the ultimate example — in which huge majorities of people (certainly voters) in such areas suddenly became socially, politically moderate (ie, truly centrist, and not “centrist” as defined by today’s media) to conservative. It would be fascinating observing the changes that might occur to the overall socio-economic nature of such environments.
When there are various cultural and economic problems undermining a society, the worst thing that can happen to it — or the antithesis of a cure — is for it to lean left, in terms of attitudes and voting habits.
Mark (fa6d93) — 6/20/2013 @ 7:04 amThanks DRJ and Machinist for the assimilation comments with respect to Texas. I do think I understand where you are coming from. When and where I grew up in the Midwest, the immigrants who came to our area, (usually an individual with special skills or training, or a couple families at a time who sought farm or factory work) Cuban, Hungarian, Vietnamese, Mexican, Greek, Philippine, Korean, Indian, German Jews–were welcomed into the local society and institutions–were helped to settle in– while they shared and exposed us to their food and traditions as well. When they arrived, they found available housing and joined the descendants of both Northern Europeans and Blacks who had settled the area. At least outwardly they took on most of the social characteristics and values of the area while also changing it a bit and making it a more interesting place for us to live in, too. Especially for us kids it gave real meaning to the phrase “melting pot”. I am not so naive as to think there were not difficult struggles with language and acculturation or that some of the immigrants did not face prejudice (which is what it was called then). But I do know that by the second generation they were fully assimilated, and just Americans period.
The demands and expectations of many of the more recent immigrants, huge numbers of them who have come here illegally or others who have stayed too long on visas, seems to have changed the American immigrant experience for everybody involved, and not in the best way. It’s too bad.
elissa (3e342a) — 6/20/2013 @ 7:56 am“It was a real question.”
Steve57 – Oh, it just sounded like you just being an obnoxious dickhead to elissa again.
There are plenty of circumstances in which a person can receive a work or academic related award and list it on their resume. There usually isn’t space to fully describe it on the resume. Depending on the nature of the item and the interviewer’s interest, the person can more fully describe it during the interview or have the typical written summary of the recognition to leave with the interviewer.
Most interviewers know what phi beta kappa, beta gamma sigma, and magna cum laude mean, but if a student was selected for a named competitive internship program or received a named departmental excellence prize in an area they probably have no idea what those mean without explanation.
Customer appreciation letters are self-explanatory. If a candidate is touting their skills in a certain area, they serve as evidence backing up the claims on the resume.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/20/2013 @ 8:06 am69. I do agree with daley in this much, his IL fellow inmate, ‘lissa, is a consistent jewel at Rico’s.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/20/2013 @ 8:21 amYou are a prince, daleyrocks. Apparently, Steve has never personally been the recipient of a complimentary or gratitude filled customer appreciation letter. Go figure.
elissa (3e342a) — 6/20/2013 @ 8:23 am“I’m curious if Texas Hispanics are different than Hispanics in other parts of the country.”
DRJ – Two big differences are that a very much higher percentage of Texas Hispanics have Mexican origins than the Hispanic populations of other states and I believe that a higher percentage of the Texas Hispanic population was born in this country as opposed to naturalized as well.
One thing I have not seen described on this thread, though, is the voting behavior of Texas Hispanics although there have been claims it is it different than the rest of the country. Am I wrong that Texas Hispanics voted for Obama last year in about the same percentage as Hispanics in the rest of the country and that their turnout lagged other ethnic groups as it did in other states?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/20/2013 @ 8:25 amI think that’s true, daleyrocks.
Good comment, elissa.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 9:28 am“I think that’s true, daleyrocks.”
DRJ – I’m just trying to understand whether the behavior you describe is anecdotal or empirical when you suggest Texas Hispanics are different.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/20/2013 @ 9:42 amForgot, NTTAWWT.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/20/2013 @ 9:45 amdaleyrocks,
It seems to me that showing Hispanics nationwide and in Texas have similar voting behaviors — specifically, that a lower percentage of Hispanics vote than other racial groups — doesn’t mean that Texas Hispanics who don’t vote will vote Democratic. They might or they might not.
My guess is Hispanics in the big Texas cities will vote Democratic but rural and smaller city Hispanics may split. In other words, we may see a rural-urban divide, just as we see with other racial groups.
But even if that’s not the case, there are some intriguing clues to how Texas Hispanics vote and view the issues in the El Paso, Texas, 2012 Democratic primary Congressional race between two Hispanics — incumbent Silvestre Reyes and challenger Beto O’Rourke. O’Rourke won and the reasons why are interesting.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 11:45 amWhat interests me the most about that race is that O’Rourke is more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative than Reyes. I think that combination appeals to many Texans who, as Machinist noted above, tend to have a live-and-let-live attitude when it comes to social issues.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 11:50 amSpecifically, Texans think people should be able to believe what they want, as long as they keep to themselves and don’t impose their views on others. IMO that’s why Houston can have a gay mayor but Texas doesn’t support gay marriage. They may seem like inconsistent positions but they aren’t if you are focused on the individual, as most Texans are.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 11:55 amSocially liberal and fiscally conservative often stand in opposition to each other. It is tough to actually be both. Someone has to pay for the social liberalism.
JD (b63a52) — 6/20/2013 @ 11:58 amOne last thing about urban Texas politics: I’m tempted to say most Texans are really libertarian, and they are happy with the GOP as long as the Republican Party embraces a libertarian agenda and policies. For the most part, most state-wide Republican Party leaders are more libertarian than not.
But in places where that changes and the GOP embraces conservative social politics (like Dallas), the Democratic Party takes over. But that might be a coincidence and the urban population is actually moving to the left, especially in areas with more minorities.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 12:01 pmJD,
I guess so but I’m not sure if socially liberal means the same thing in Texas that it does elsewhere. For instance, I doubt most Texans care if a woman uses contraception as long as she pays for it herself, but don’t expect the taxpayers to pay.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 12:04 pm“It seems to me that showing Hispanics nationwide and in Texas have similar voting behaviors — specifically, that a lower percentage of Hispanics vote than other racial groups — doesn’t mean that Texas Hispanics who don’t vote will vote Democratic. They might or they might not.”
DRJ – You are right that nobody knows how they will vote unless they actually go to the polls and I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I think the consistently low turnout across states is an interesting phenomenon.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/20/2013 @ 12:08 pm“One last thing about urban Texas politics: I’m tempted to say most Texans are really libertarian, and they are happy with the GOP as long as the Republican Party embraces a libertarian agenda and policies.”
DRJ – How many cities in Texas have declared themselves sanctuary cities?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/20/2013 @ 12:12 pmdaleyrocks,
This list shows 13 cities, most of which are in South and central Texas, but I don’t think it’s current. I know there were some highly publicized cases in Houston and Austin that resulted in a change of policy in those towns.
But I guess it depends on how you define sanctuary city. http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2010/05/is-houston-a-sanctuary-city-is-texas-a-sanctuary-state/Some think the term applies to all Texas cities and to Texas. To the extent that’s true, I think it’s due to the libertarian influence.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 12:27 pmSorry for the messy link style in my last comment. I’m really getting tired of manually inserting links.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 12:27 pmStrange. When I click on my link in #84, it takes me to a Bristol Palin article. That wasn’t my intent and it doesn’t match the URL. Hopefully, here’s the right link.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 12:29 pm“Strange. When I click on my link in #84, it takes me to a Bristol Palin article.”
DRJ – Mr. Feets will be over the moon with that link!
Thanks for the other info.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/20/2013 @ 12:54 pmFWIW, daleyrocks, I’m not a libertarian although I agree with many libertarian policies. I think it was easier to be libertarian in the 1940’s and 1950’s when there was a religious moral code that governed public behavior, so extreme behavior was rare and condemned. It’s easy to be libertarian when most behavior fits that code, but the 1960’s changed that and now anything goes.
Many Texans still follow the 1950’s-style code (as do many Americans) but times are changing, even here. As they do, I’m not surprised to see conservatives push back. Ultimately, I hope we’ll find a middle ground, both here in Texas and elsewhere.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 1:49 pmdaleyrocks,
Here’s an interesting footnote from Sean Trende regarding Hispanic turnout:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/20/2013 @ 2:29 pmGuess why and for whom they turned out?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/21/2013 @ 12:52 pm