Seneca: Latinos and the GOP, Part II

March 18th, 2009 · 38 Comments

During the Nixon Administration, the GOP began to assimilate the White South and all its cultural baggage: racial resentment of the African-American progress and the betraying Democratic Party. Meanwhile, Latinos still in overwhelming numbers remained Democrats. It was in the early 80’s with Ronald Reagan and the rise of the religious Evangelical Right that many Latinos became attracted to the Republican Party. It appears that several considerations must be made to understand this evolving phenomenon. Increasingly, the religious Evangelical fervor among Latinos was also on the rise. The GOP unfairly, but with some effect, branded the Democrats as a party of ‘losers': the poor, the unemployed, the welfare beneficiaries, the pro-abortionist, the party of San Francisco (Gays and marijuana), anti-military, soft on national security and Liberal-Leftist. This attracted many ‘Archie Bunker’ type Latinos. Moreover, the Cuban-Americans who began their political ascendancy in 1980 with the creation of the Cuban American National Foundation and the election of Reagan, closely and overwhelmingly allied their community with the hard right wing of the GOP. The litmus test for the Cuban Americans is being anti-Castro and hard-line anti-communist. The numbers of Mexican-Americans joining the armed forces is also an impressive indicator of a conservative outlook on national defense. Many Latino professional and small business owners identify with the more conservative GOP. Also, Catholic Latinos aware of the Church’s view on abortion or its pro-life stand are influenced to become more socially conservative. Yet one must point out that, if those Mexican Americans who are Evangelical or more rural or small town than other Latino groups they will tend to vote with the GOP. But this is certainly not in the majority. Mexican-Americans, who at times may be more socially conservative with their rural roots than the Cuban-Americans, they nonetheless remain largely allied to the Democratic Party. Puerto Ricans are solidly Democrat in political persuasion. Nevertheless, the fact that President Obama the first minority Chief Executive received only two thirds of the Latino vote is still revealing. It suggests that the GOP has perhaps permanently captured a 30% of the Latino vote, even though it is generally perceived as being anti-immigrant and basically a party of the White South and the Heartland.

Obama’s minority status did not move Latinos to vote for him as overwhelming as the African-American voters did. One must ask if these GOP Latinos are sensitive to the immigration debate and do they side with general Republican sentiment on the issue. Then again, the Democrats are not breaking down doors to address the immigration conundrum either.  In sum, the Latinos will probably continue not to be monolithic in inclination to the Democratic Party, but will be a significant and increasingly powerful actor in Democratic Party activities. Meanwhile, the GOP will continue to reach out to the Latino community in a determined way— as it has in the past– by being the first of the two parties to appoint the first Latino White House Fellow Henry Cisneros, first Assistant Secretary Al Zapanta by President Ford, the first two Latinos (Cavazos and Lujan), to the Cabinet by Reagan and Bush 41. Bush 43 later attempted to name the first Latino to the federal Court of Appeals (Miguel Estrada); plus many other visible appointments. Similarly, the Democrats have also found the need to appoint Latinos to the Cabinet and sub Cabinet like Federico Pena, Henry Cisneros and Bill Richardson.

In the end, the GOP understands that the growing Latino population will certainly be an even more important element in national, state and local elections and must seriously examine how to keep the Latino base of 30% within the party and make it grow. The Democrats must demonstrate that they do not take the Latinos for granted (two thirds of the group’s voters) and involve them even more in the party process and in the governing and policy-making process. The three significant Latino voting groups currently are Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans. Soon they will be joined by millions of other recent Latino immigrant groups like the Central Americans, the Caribbean and South Americans. The race will be on for their political loyalties. The looming debate on immigration will smoke out many of the hidden sentiments among the American body politic. If one of the national parties allows the debate to become one of being anti-Latino/Hispanic versus being just anti-illegal entry into the US, then the Latino population will react accordingly and move solidly to the non-offending party. The case of California in the 1990s is instructive. When the GOP sitting governor (Pete Wilson) attempted to garner votes by assailing illegal immigrants, the political target was designated to be the medical and school costs inflicted on California. Sadly, the upshot became a fiercely anti-Latino sentiment which was readily palpable. This resulted in a more activist and pro-Democrat Latino constituency. The GOP cannot afford to have this repeated at the national level. The only continuous and reliable Democrat state in national elections and where the Latinos reside in sizable numbers is New York. California is increasingly considered a loyal Democrat state with its growing Latino population. New Mexico tends to have a more independent Latino constituency which can tack Republican or Democrat, but usually it votes Democrat. Texas Latinos are largely Democrat in orientation, tradition and behavior. All six Latino Congressmen are Democrats as they are in California, but the Republicans have become the dominant party in Texas at virtually every level. Many Texas Latinos vote for the GOP on national and state-wide elections. But the majority remains Democrat. All demographic studies reveal that the Latino population in Texas will be preponderant in the not too distant future and the GOP will be the big loser given its current insufficient or indifferent outreach to the Hispanic community.

In the last thirty years, the Hispanic community in Florida has been dominated by the effective Cuban-American political efforts in favor of the Republican Party. However, the election of 2008 revealed that the majority of Latino voters in the state are no longer Cubans. Moreover, the GOP hold on the Cuban-Americans is no longer the case. Recent arrivals of Cubans along with third generation Cuban-Americans tend not to automatically affiliate with the GOP. Additionally, the arrival into Florida of significant numbers of Central Americans, South Americans, Mexicans and the movement of Puerto Ricans from the Northeast indicates that they are not following the traditional Cuban lead on voting Republican. Again, the GOP has an enormous challenge in how to attract Latinos into its big tent. Just electing the National Chair of the Party like Senator Mel Martinez is insufficient. The party must have a serious outreach with a welcoming fervor. Latinos have to feel comfortable with a party’s philosophy on race and ethnicity, treatment of their social and economic issues and concerns and be made to feel an integral part of the membership. In sum, some Latinos have found some solace with the GOP for economic, social, fiscal, national security, and other philosophical reasons. But their allegiance is tentative if the Party’s discourse becomes pervasively unwelcoming.

Tags: Abortion rights · African-Americans · Barack Obama · Bill Richardson · Democratic Party · diversity · Economics · Evangelicals · Federico Peña · GOP · GWB · Henry Cisneros · Immigration · Sen. Mel Martinez · Seneca · voting trends

38 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Julian Posada // Mar 18, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    Just ran into your site through Twitter. Congrats good work I will keep up with your posts.

  • 2 india blanca // Mar 18, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    I will never understand how any Latino, especially one who has immigrated to this country or comes from immigrant parents/grandparents, can actually identify with the Republican Party… matter what their marketing techniques say the Republicans have never done a thing for us…furthermore, their anti illegal immigrant discourse is nothing but a disguise for their racism….their fear that we are changing the make up of US demographics, making it a browner face, and progressively a bilingual race…they may like our guacamole and corn chips but the sounds of our culture grates their nerves….it is true that Democrats are not free of blame in the marginalization of our people but the record speaks loud and clear when it comes to finding the political party that has given Latinos, among other minorities the opportunity to seek the American Dream.

  • 3 webmaster // Mar 18, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    Julian Posada,

    Thank you! And please do come back and join in the conversation.

    India Blanca,

    I too have trouble with identifying with the Republican Party, and my family is multi-generational Latino. I am not a Republican and will likely never be one, but I think that on some level, if you believe in the concept of the American dream, meaning that if you work hard, act prudently, have faith, and stay out of trouble, that you expect to be rewarded for your efforts. And if you believe in the American Dream, I can see how the philosophies of the Republican Party can be appealing, especially when it comes to lower taxes, encouraging entrepreneurship, etc.

    That being said, we have seen in recent years just how inequitable society has become with Republican policy making and how exclusionary a club the GOP has become. Right now, the Republicans are rumbling over their new African-American chairman, and we saw how uncomfortable it was for Mel Martinez to try to lead that party. The Republican Party has, in my view, become more authoritarian relying on God and a faux sense of patriotism that has enabled a lot of duplicitous behavior. We saw this with President GWB most recently.

    And you are most certainly correct that the Democrats don’t exactly have a glowing record with our people either, but I do see more opportunities for us to lead and sense that the Democratic Party has a bigger tent. Some of the social conservative elements that once made the GOP more appealing to Latinos of an older generation might not hold the younger set of gente who are being socialized politically right now.

  • 4 DelToro // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    It truly saddens me that so many latinos are blind to the democrats tricks. They are not attempting to get right with us. They are attempting to line their pockets with votes by pretending to champion our causes. They do nothing and yet so many of us think they are helping. I agree that republicans have not been a help but in a much diffrent way. I completely disagree with india blanca. Your comment on the “brown faces” is so absurd. One could make the agrument that this blog site is racist because of its sole focus on all things latino. Would that be right? Your idea that they are against latinos because they are against illegal immigration is the kind of one sided thinking that will hurt this nation in the long run. The CHC met with POTUS and they said they are very happy with the outcome. If BO grants amnesty the people who will be most hurt by this is the American latino. Open your eyes. And india, a bilingual race is not what is happening. Bilingualism is o.k. but what we have are millions demanding their foreign language be given equal time. This is the United States of America. English is the language that this country shares as its common. Get on board. Stop demanding that the US step aside becasue our birth rate is higher. Many immigrants came before latinos. They became Americans. They did not demand things because of some percieved kinship with foreigners from their ancestor’s country. You are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. You see racism and bigotry in all things unless we throw open the borders and everyone learns YOUR language. You are a greater threat to latinos than any republican could be.

  • 5 HispanicPundit // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    I am a conservative…often times Republican… minority, for those who want to know why a Latino would vote GOP aside from religious reasons, I wrote a long post on that when I started my blog here.

    A much shorter version is this: The US model is FAR better for minorities than the European model (its more debatable when you are talking about middle and upper class white people, but the comparison is stark when dealing with minorities). Democrats want to move the USA in the European economic model direction, Republicans want more of the USA model.

  • 6 Reyfeo // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    Truly, I find it very insulting that because of being a Christian and prefer not see babies killed in the womb (no matter how humane you say it is), am willing to die for my country (which many have done and made this country great), prefer to not be taxed to death while alive and then get taxed again when I do, you would call many like me “Archie Bunker type Latinos.” Really, it’s insulting to think that because we have opposing views you would almost classify us racist, war mongers and bible thumpers extremist. This is probably why many of conservative friends will never read this garbage.

  • 7 HispanicPundit // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:59 pm


    You have pointed out yet another reason why so many people dislike Democrats, and in turn, vote Republican: The Democrats elitest attitude towards the masses.

    They are so sheltered in their secular enclaves that they can’t even understand the common mans opposing views.

    So when they see poor minority communities that may be very patriotic, anti-gay marriage, significantly more pro-life, and have a general respect for God and morality…they see it as pure bigotry and a masses lost without their benevolent guidance. We are but children to the ever wise limousine liberals.

    Granted, not the main reason why I am Republican…but it certainly adds to why I can’t vote Democrat.

  • 8 webmaster // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:07 pm


    Seneca did not characterize you as an “Archie Bunker type.” You are making inferences again.

    There are many Democrats who are willing to die and get maimed for their country too. I think that if you examine the record on military service most recently, you will find that many Dems have served honorably. This is why many people take issue with Republicans, who seem to have insisted that only the people in their party have served in military. GWB and Cheney both skipped out on Vietnam, while John Kerry served and even was injured.

    I know many people in my family who have served in military and who belong to both Dem and GOP.

  • 9 Reyfeo // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    Nicely put DelToro!

  • 10 Reyfeo // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    Seneca said: “The GOP unfairly, but with some effect, branded the Democrats as a party of ‘losers’: the poor, the unemployed, the welfare beneficiaries, the pro-abortionist, the party of San Francisco (Gays and marijuana), anti-military, soft on national security and Liberal-Leftist. This attracted many ‘Archie Bunker’ type Latinos.”…sorry, I’m sure I read this right…nice try at spinning this, but Seneca thinks mnay conservatives like me are “Archie Bunker Type Latinos”. No ” inferences” made here by me, i’m sure of it.

  • 11 Anna // Mar 19, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    Hispanic Pundit: “The Democrats elitest attitude towards the masses.”

    What do you think the Republican elite’s attitude is towards the people? Republican economic policies don’t work. They never have. Every time they’re in charge they ruin the economy, and that has been the pattern with them since Herbert Hoover in 1929.

    All of those religious and social issues they like to focus on are just to distract you from the fact that they are stealing your money. That’s all they care about.

  • 12 HispanicPundit // Mar 19, 2009 at 5:36 pm


    I am curious, what do you think of this comment I made above:

    A much shorter version is this: The US model is FAR better for minorities than the European model (its more debatable when you are talking about middle and upper class white people, but the comparison is stark when dealing with minorities). Democrats want to move the USA in the European economic model direction, Republicans want more of the USA model.

    One could make an argument that the USA represents the Republican version of an economy and Europe represents the Democrat version of an economy. My argument is that the USA version is much better for minorities.

    What say you? Do you disagree with my analogy or its conclusion? I am limited for time…so I want to get to the heart of our disagreements pronto.

  • 13 Anna // Mar 19, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    I don’t see any evidence that the Democrats are moving the US towards a European economic model, or that what the Republicans practice is the “American model.” And I don’t believe that Republican economic failures and thefts are good for minorities or anybody else.

  • 14 HispanicPundit // Mar 19, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    Okay, let me elaborate.

    The European economic model is generally, vis a vis the US economic model, considered:

    1. More regulated.
    2. Higher taxes.
    3. More welfare.
    4. More government involvement in the private sector.
    5. More unions.
    6. Higher labor regulations.
    7. Less competitive.

    In other words, generally less laissez-faire than the US (though, recently, ironically, Europe has been moving more towards the US economic model as the USA has been moving more towards the European economic model, but that’s a topic for another day).

    My argument is that the European economic model more closely mirrors the direction the Democrats want to take us in…and the US economic model, vis-a-vis the European economic model, mirrors more the direction Republicans want to take us in.

    Just to reiterate: I am arguing that based on those assumptions above, the Republican model is much better for minorities than the Democrat model.

    What say you?

  • 15 Anna // Mar 19, 2009 at 9:48 pm

    First of all, your argument rests on the notion that the Democrats are moving us in the direction of European socialism, as if unions, and a modest safety net are un-American.

    Secondly, you call the robber baron style of capitalism (if you can even call it capitalism anymore) Republicans practice “American.” Is it inherently American to run up huge deficits and debts while transferring wealth to corporations?

    No, because third world countries do this all the time. After all, Chile in the 1970s was the first application of Friedman economics.

    And then you say that the way Republicans do business is better for minorities. As I said, and as this economic crisis has shown, their economic policies are bad for the whole world. How much more evidence does one need ?

    That party consists of coporations and people who are easily manipulated by emotional issues: religious intolerance, sexism under the guise of “pro-life,” racism, fear, etc.

  • 16 Anna // Mar 19, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    I disagree. The best time in this country was the post WWII era when we had a strong safety net, and when we invested in education and infrastructure. Back then America was #1.

    Reagan began the end of all that by making people think that all of their tax money was going to the blacks. Suddenly the working class willingly gave up the gains they had fought for over the last 100 years. Today, they don’t understand why their jobs are being shipped overseas. They can’t make the connection between the Reagan’s policies of the 1980s and today.

    That, in addition to the corporate consolidation of the media, where they own all the stations and blast their propaganda 24/7 , has led us into the mess we’re in today.

    Nothing the GOP does is good for minorities or for America. They are crooks going back to Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon and Dubya. I wish they would go the way of the Whig Party.

  • 17 HispanicPundit // Mar 19, 2009 at 11:22 pm


    Since you continue to avoid dealing with my premises…and I do think they are fair and accurate premises…I have little to add to our discussion. Readers can read my comments, your responses, and decide for themselves who is making the stronger claim.

    With that said, I will respond to a couple of the somewhat related comments you made to my post. You write:

    Is it inherently American to run up huge deficits and debts while transferring wealth to corporations?

    Your political bias shows through when you complain about Republican deficits at a time when Democrats, controlling both houses of congress and the presidency at a far higher majority than Republicans ever had…are adding to the deficit in a couple month period what it took Bush almost his full 8 years to do.

    After all, Chile in the 1970s was the first application of Friedman economics.

    Yes, this is true. And its important to remember that Chile is one of Latin America’s strongest economies, even to this day. Contrast Chile to the lefts darling, Cuba. Whereas Chile is one of Latin America’s strongest economies, Cuba is, undoubtedly, Latin America’s worst. This is why whenever I see someone wearing a Che shirt I immediately quip that if you are going to wear the shirt of a dictator it should be Pinochet, not Che. After all, atleast Pinochet left his country with a stronger economy. ;-)

    The best time in this country was the post WWII era when we had a strong safety net, and when we invested in education and infrastructure. Back then America was #1.

    Leaving aside for the moment the real history of the 1950’s, especially in how that economy relates to minorities, it is still an unrealistic alternative. Given the global nature of today’s economy, the economy of the 1950’s is simply unpractical. In order to come up with an economic model, you first have to prove that the model is atleast livable in today’s economy (which is why I gave examples of real world economies today) – the economy of the 1950’s is not.

    But don’t take my word for it, take the word of left wing economist Herbert Gintis, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, who wrote, when reviewing Krugman’s recent book that made similar arguments to the one you are now making:

    I suspect Krugman is correct in saying that the degree of inequality in the USA today is the product of politics, not economic necessity. This is because some advanced industrial countries have more equal distributions of income and wealth that the USA (e.g., France, Germany). But, these countries are plagued by bureaucratic inefficiency and deeply threatened by the “lean and mean” up-and-coming countries like Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, India, et al. The USA has purchased a thriving economy and full employment at the cost of having a bunch of super-rich families. Not a bad deal, after all.

    Krugman’s vision for the future has three key premises, all wrong.

    First, he believes progressives can win on a platform of redistributing from the rich. However, no one cares about inequality. People care about injustice, unfairness, poverty, sexual predators, family values, gay marriage, terrorism, and many other problems of everyday life. People don’t care about Gini distributions and other abstractions. Moreover, Krugman should know that if the wealth were redistributed to the middle class, the US investment rate would fall, since the rich save their money and it is translated into investment, whereas the middle classes would spend their gains on consumption, thus driving out investment. A “soak the rich” policy simply cannot work to the advantage of the middle classes.

    Second, Krugman would strengthen the labor unions, which he credits for their egalitarian effects. However, unions were strong only when industry was highly non-competitive in such areas as automobiles and steel. The oligopolistic character of mid-twentieth century industry, with a few countries in the lead, made fighting over the excess profits highly rewarding. With globalization, there are no excess profits to be fought over. Thus, it is not surprising that most successful unions in the USA are public service, not private (e.g., teachers, government employees). There is no future in unionism, period.

    Third, Krugman believes that liberalism can be restored to its 1950’s health without the need for any new policies. However, 1950’s liberalism was based on southern white racism and solid support from the unions, neither of which exists any more. There is no future in pure redistributional policies in the USA for this reason. Indeed, if one looks at other social democratic countries, almost all are moving from corporate liberalism to embrace new options, such as Sarkozy in France (French socialists have the same pathetic political sense as American liberals, and will share the same fate).

    I am sorry that we can’t do better than Krugman. There are very serious social problems to be addressed, but the poor, pathetic, liberals simply haven’t a clue.

    Little more can be said. You can find more of his review at the Economist blog, here.

  • 18 Anna // Mar 20, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Lots more can be said. Look, we can go back and forth, but history proves me right, and the current mess we’re in proves you wrong. Case closed.

  • 19 Irma // Mar 20, 2009 at 9:27 am

    I am a Democrat , but did not jump on the Obama train. I abstained from voting for President in 2008 because I was not satisfied with the nominee from either party. In general, I have to say that
    over the years – I have grown dissatisfied with my party . It remains to be seen if the current administration and Congress will revive a
    recent inclination of mine to register as an Independant. I am particularly concerned about the failure of the Obama adminstration to
    place proper oversight over the billions of dollars of taxpayer money which they are doling out like cookies to banks, mortage companies
    and the like. To say the buck stops here and at the same time to try place blame elsewhere is
    hypocritical and disappointing.

    They are doing the same thing in a recent announcement for competition of “stimulus”
    funds for biomedical research. Billions of dollars are up for grabs within the next few months without any real oversight. There is going to be tremendous waste – because of the
    stipulations that are being placed on the funds ie. spend it NOW. There seems to be a pattern
    in the Obama plan – do it quick , but there is little regard for the consequences of such haste.

    I think everyone should simply LISTEN to what
    the politicians are saying. Dont let your party
    affiliation bias you .

  • 20 Anna // Mar 20, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    Supporting the Democrats, doesn’t mean that I think they’re faultless. And I’m not satisfied with Obama either. He’s looking more and more like a front man. I think the last President who knew anything about public policy, and who could actually speak without a teleprompter was Bill Clinton.

    Obama said he didn’t know about the bonuses to AIG and claimed that Geithner was doing a good job. Kind of like then Dubya said that Brownie was doing a heck of a job.

  • 21 HispanicPundit // Mar 20, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    “AP – President Barack Obama’s budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.”

  • 22 tony herrera // Mar 21, 2009 at 10:05 am


    Perhaps Obama’s presidency will get us into a bigger financial mess than that of George W. Bush, but I seriously doubt it.

    Is your distaste of Krugman based on the fact that he has been stating loud and clear for the previous 8 years that Bush’s policies would lead to our economic demise?

    It amazes me folks like yourself, don’t see the dire state that the Republican party is in. Truth is unless the Republican party finds a way to embrace the growing Latino constituency (which means they’ve got to change their anti-immigrant stance, whether warranted or not) they are politically dead.

    I’m a firm believer that the GOP is unlikely to able to field a viable candidate for the 2012 or 2016 Presidential Elections.

    Don’t get me wrong, much of what you state makes a lot of theoretical sense, but the reality is that you fall within that very, very, very small minority who believe that the Republican party actually has their best interest in mind.

    As Anna so aptly stated, thus far history has proven you wrong, because the GOP has done little to raise the standard of living for Latinos.


    I hear you. I’m wondering if you felt the same way when Bush hastily got us into an ill-conceived war with Iraq and Afghanistan?

    When he lied and led this country with a false premise that they possessed WMD’s?

    At the very least the election of Obama as our President, will begin to improve our tattered reputation in eyes of the World, a reputation Bush had pretty much decimated.

  • 23 Reyfeo // Mar 21, 2009 at 11:32 am

    Tony–Are you kidding?

    “At the very least the election of Obama as our President, will begin to improve our tattered reputation in eyes of the World, a reputation Bush had pretty much decimated.”

    The Chinese just lectured us on our economy and how we’re spending too much on credit…The COMMUNIST CHINESE TONY!! We said nothing…probably because they’re the lender.

    France of all nations told us our gov’t is getting TOO BIG…the French Tony! Of all people the liberal French telling us to our Gov’t is getting to Big.

    Obama reached out to Iran, and just yesterday, because he hasn’t changed the US policy towards them, they pretty much told us to go to hell. Why is that? Probably because its good policy not to deal with terroist. Same policy Bush had.

    I laugh at folks like you who like to lecture the few of us who see the Democrat Party for what it is and then have the gall to say Bush lied about the war.

    But lets bring this back to topic…name me a one thing that the democrats have done to help the American Latino? I didn’t say illegal aliens either Tony…I mean you and me and the rest of us supposed US Citizens you want to bunch up togther under the guise of “Latino”. And what exactly is it that Democrats said in this prevous elcetion that made you vote for them? Or did you just hate Bush so much you had no choice. Was it Gays Marriage? More Taxes? More Gov’t sponsored welfare?

    I really am curious and so i’ll wait on your response, I am very curiuos to know why you vote Democrat?

  • 24 DelToro // Mar 21, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    tony herrera said:
    “Perhaps Obama’s presidency will get us in more financial trouble than Mr. Bush’s, but I doubt it”?

    Yeah right.

    $9.3 Trillion. Before you tell me this is what has to happen to allow Obama to save us from Bush find out if it is possible to buy your way out of a financial mess like this? Ask the Japanese. This is a perfect excuse for Obama and Congress to use fear to pass their agenda along. Nothing more.

  • 25 RayRay Bowdeen // Mar 21, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    “our Gov’t is getting to Big.”

    Does it take a train or plane for or our Govt. to get to Big?

    I hope it never gets TOO big to travel.

  • 26 HispanicPundit // Mar 21, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    tony herrera,

    You have a short memory and are too optimistic, IMHO. It wasn’t but just 4 years ago that everything you said about the Republican party could have been said of the Democratic party – and look at where they are at now. If the Democrats could do it, the GOP could as well. In fact, since the 60’s, its been primarily Republicans as presidents. Maybe Obama will chance all of that, but its certainly to early to tell – certainly too early to have the confidence you espouse.

    In fact, one of the most surprising facts of the 2008 election is just how close McCain got to winning. With an unpopular war, a slowing economy, and a Republican candidate who many Republicans themselves found unacceptable (without even mentioning the VP pick)…and with Democrats offering arguably the best political candidate they have had in a generation…McCain still got 46% of the vote.

    I grant that the Republican party is in trouble and needs to do something about it (of which I am hopeful they will), I am just arguing against your presumptuousness.

  • 27 DelToro // Mar 21, 2009 at 9:28 pm


    Well put. What the GOP does not need to do is bend over backward in an attempt to pretend that the idea of enforcing our borders is akin to racism. That very idea is pushed by those who use the cover of racism to hide their agenda of unchecked advocacy for law breaking on the sole basis that one’s skin pigment makes them brothers/sisters. But I won’t hold my breath.

  • 28 Anna // Mar 22, 2009 at 10:50 am

    Republicans aren’t going to close the border because they want exploitable workers. The fence they were planning to build was retractable.
    They use immigration as a wedge issue just like they use abortion and gay rights. Get a clue..

  • 29 DelToro // Mar 23, 2009 at 7:57 am


    You have the same message everytime and there is very little basis for it. The big bad “man” is keeping us down. You offer no responsibility for the actions of our people and only that the big monster of racism is always at fault. Yet everyday their are examples of how people are creating their own problems. Unchecked illegal immigration/open borders which is what NCLR, MALDEF and LULAC are all about will continue to hurt the latino population more than any other group. So keep blaming “whitey” for all our problems and don’t ever get serious about what truly is keeping latinos from succeeding in this nation. I can’t believe anyone takes you serious anymore.

  • 30 Anna // Mar 23, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Re: “The big bad “man” is keeping us down.”

    I’ve never said that. Now you’re just making things up because you can’t refute what I say with facts.

    Furthermore, as I said before, immigration is dictated by the economy. Corporations want cheap labor, and prisons want more prisoners. Prisons are on the stock market now and they are making more and more money from the imprisoning of illegal immigrants.Do you think Obama will stop any of this? He’s a corporate hack who just reads a teleprompter, so don’t count on it.

    Neither the Republicans, not the Democrats have made any plans to close the border or to deport the millions of people who are here illegally. The GOP staged some raids right before the elections, but that’s about it. Why do you think that is? Hmm?

    These immigrants aren’t going anywhere, so my recommendation to you is that you figure out a way to get on with your life.

    NCLR has nothing to do with it. People on this website give those little groups so much power. lol

  • 31 Irma // Mar 24, 2009 at 9:59 am

    Bloggers please weigh in at Latina Lista as well.
    Marisa’s well though out articles are being
    attacked by anti-immigrant rightwing

  • 32 DelToro // Mar 25, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    “Anti=immigrant”= people who want the law followed. The PC double-speak is ridiculous.


    NCLR is a racist organization that uses extortion and bigotry to further its cause.

  • 33 webmaster // Mar 25, 2009 at 8:33 pm


    NCLR was established with a Ford Foundation grant. And currently, NCLR has big corporate sponsors such as Wal-Mart, B of A, Citi, Verizon, Johnson and Johnson, etc. People who try to portray NCLR as a fringe group always seem to miss that point.

    It’s a Hispanic advocacy and civil rights organization, and not all Latinos are completely on board with their agenda.

    Who is NCLR extorting? And if you do think that the organization is using bigotry (which I don’t, they partner with other civil rights orgs, such as NAACP and Asian groups as well), then why don’t you ask its corporate partners to cease doing business with them?

    The wikipedia entry on NCLR is pretty comprehensive:

  • 34 Anna // Mar 25, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    Re: “NCLR is a racist organization that uses extortion and bigotry to further its cause.”

    What a load of BS. lol

  • 35 DelToro // Mar 26, 2009 at 3:38 pm


    I have two eyes and know how to use a computer. I have written many letters and emails to NCLR. I know who their partners are and sold my Ford for that exact reason. I do no business with groups associated as far as I know. Wikipedia is a mediocre site for info as almost anyone can write in the info section. NCLR is pushing an anti-US agenda. It works to further illegal worker rights at the detremint to US citizens AND THAT INCLUDES LATINOS. Keep your head in the sand I will not participate.

  • 36 webmaster // Mar 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm


    I know that anyone can edit Wikipedia, but how is the NCLR agenda anti-US? And if it is, why is Verizon, Wal-Mart, Citi, Bank of America, American Airlines, Eastman Kodak, Fannie Mae, General Mills, General Motors, etc. associating themselves with the organization?

    Look at their list of corporate partners here:

    If NCLR is so effective in furthering illegal worker rights, then why are undocumented workers still denied due process and basic protections? NCLR hasn’t stopped the ICE raids or have they?

    Enlighten us as to how NCLR is pushing an anti-US agenda…it looks like NCLR is firmly aligned itself with some corporate giants.

  • 37 Will Latinos remember how Judge Sotomayor was treated? // Aug 1, 2009 at 2:43 pm

    […] in March, Seneca blogged about Latinos and the GOP, suggesting that “the GOP has an enormous challenge in how to attract Latinos into its big […]

  • 38 Mr. Spock // May 1, 2010 at 9:23 pm

    Reason im a Dem: I’m a liberal, I’m not religious, and I dislike people trying to cram their religious beliefs on me. The only thing I agree with the Republicans on is that people should be allowed to have guns, and even then, that should be strongly regulated. Secondly I only think abortions should be allowed in case of rape on incest.

Leave a Comment