Skip to comments.Fixing immigration fairly
Posted on 04/12/2005 4:05:42 AM PDT by Boston Blackie
Invoking symbols ranging from the Revolutionary War to Martin Luther King Jr., armed vigilantes are patrolling a segment of the Arizona-Mexico border and taking the enforcement of immigration law into their own hands. While they claim only to offer support to the Border Patrol, the Mexican government is on edge, human rights activists have flooded the area, and President Bush has distanced himself from the effort.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Recall that this was the analogy that Tancredo used in Feb 04. In that same article, Tancredo said that the bill that emerges from Congress will be far worse than the Bush Plan.
Here it is, 14 months later, and still the only bill that can pass is a compromise bill such as AgJobs.
The MMP is not that relevant. This is the season when agricultural workers and land scapers migrate North. They've done it before and know how to do it. They cross at the bridges and normal border crossings. MMP has not addressed this reality of immigration. They have not interrupted any meaningful commerce. They have not created hardship for anyone.
The only ones who cross in the middle of the desert are the stupid ones. The smart ones know how easy it is to cross at the normal points.
The MMP is a symbolic action to draw attention to the issue.... to get press coverage. By doing it in the deserted desert it is non-confrontational. If it were done at the crowded bridge, it would be much more confrontational. Most MMP participants would not like to be so confrontational. And then the smaller number of participants would have less credibility and have to escalate the confrontation to obtain the press coverage and draw attention to the issue. And, of course, the press would then twist the confrontational approach to be much more negative than they are now doing.
This commentary is not about the content of the issue. It is about tactics. To quote Mel Gibson in THE PATRIOT "General Gates is stupid" .... not for being on the wrong side ... but for using stupid tactics. Smart strategy and tactics are necessary to win any struggle.
And is the worst part that those hordes of young children are pro-life Catholics who are as quick to leave the Liberation Theology Catholic Church for a pro-life Assembly of God Church as the Irish Catholics are to abort their babies and become secular Catholics?
From Pete Wilson in CA to Utah (not a hot bed of Blue) to Illinois, the anti-immigrant voters are able to lose, and sometimes to sink a candidate they agree with on 80% of the issues. But the anti-immigrant voters are only rarely able to win.
One reason for that is that in their passion for the issue, they see no need for smart strategy and tactics. A second reason is that, similar to the pro-life passionate, they are often unwilling to work in coalitions with people who agree with them on 80% of the issues.
In a 7 candidate IL GOP primary for US Sen, Oberweiss ran an anti-immigrant ad that gave him a 10% bump in the polls and that bump carried thru to election day to carry him to 2d place in the 7 candidate field. But the #1 and #3 and #4 and #6 candidates for 70% of the vote were all "pro-immigrant".
In 5 towns I knocked door to door for the #3 candidate with good words for the #1 candidate, knowing he was going to win the primary but did not have the cajones needed in the US Sen. Consistently the 70% of GOP primary voters ridiculed Oberweiss for his anti-immigrant stand. Overwhelmingly, these voters agreed with the #1, #2, #3 candidates on pro-life, cutting government spending, education choice and other conservative coalition issues. Interestingly, the only pro-abortion candidate was also very anti-immigrant. But due to his stand on abortion, he came in last, despite being supported by the GOP State Chair and her patronage and having the wisdom of the professor of Illinois politics.
Bump for reality.
Excellent post. And those who do not perform basic responsibilities, such as showing respect and obeying our laws should have their a$$es kicked out, and forbidden to return. May be we could charge the Mexican government for the strife they cause us!!! HAHAHAHA
I'm Already there. I've been surrounded by illegals since 1961. First migrant farmworkers. Then illegal Poles and Eastern Europeans in NW Chicago. Then by Hispanics in the city and now by Hispanics and Asians in the suburbs. 55% of new homeowners in my suburb have Hispanic last names... most who came here illegally. And that doesn't count the illegals with non-Hispanic names. Plus, of course, the illegal Asians and a couple Haitians.
overcrowding your schools, not paying income taxes, and receiving government benefits.
When my suburb was first built, 100% of homebuyers had school age children... that was why they fled the city. Now, those original buyers are empty nesters. Even though new buyers are large families, only a small percentage of homes change ownership each year. Thus, school enrollment is much less than it was 10 or 20 years ago.
You will be horrified by the next fact. The new homebuyers often have 3, 4 and even 5 working adults overcrowding the house they just bought. It's known as being pro-family. The extended family is the safety net, not the government. Section 8 and FHA/VA financing is less with these immigrant buyers than with the original citizen buyers. Conventional mortgages are up with these immigrant buyers.
When the priest preaches they must sign up for Kidcare to be good parents and good Catholics and the white nuns and deacons try to corner them as they leave mass, they successfully avoid signing up for Kidcare. Kidcare is a failure in Illinois because those eligible do not sign up for it. The only ones getting our tax money are Sister Edith, Jesse Jackson and poverty pimp citizens.
The immigrant homeowners all have income taxes and social security witheld. If they were to file 1040, most would get refunds. But they do not file and do not get refunds due to fear that their bogus SSN will be discovered or the IRS will share info with the INS.... and due to not understanding the US tax system.
Bottom line, the immigrants (legal and illegal) in my suburb pay much more in taxes than they recieve in benefit. Social Security is kept alive by them.
Historically, illegal Polish immigrants came here at age 45 and bought a social security card (and drivers license and voters card) from Congressman Rostenkowski's patronage. They retired to Poland and collected Social Security there. The Solidarily movement was financed by our Social Security benefits being shipped to Poland... and by the private money send back to Poland by immigrants.
In contrast, historically, Hispanics have never tried or been able to collect social security benefits when they retire in Mexico. But, of course, they do send massive amounts of the money they earn through hard work back to support their families.
In the immigrant culture, the extended family is the safety net. Not the government. To become Americanized is to dump obligations to the extended family; emulate Hollyweird morality and collect government benefits. That is the American way. Not the Mexican or Indian way.
When your kids ...have a hard time getting hired since they do not speak Spanish OR there are no jobs available since they are filled with illegals.
Sorry to disappoint you. My kids speak Spanish better than I do, but not as good as my wife does. At work, I have a harder time understanding illegal Indian IT workers whose first language is English with a weird accent, than I do understanding the illegal Central American Contras that clean my office building.
Both the highly paid illegal Indian IT workers and the modestly paid illegal Hispanics in Illinois are here because Americans do not want the jobs available. Where I work, they have consistently been unable to fill all the IT jobs they are trying to fill. They have 3 choices: 1) Kill the project. 2) Outsource to India. 3)Bring in immigrant workers. Are they legal? Don't ask, don't tell.
Yes there are problems with immigration. But the sky is not falling. Immigrants are not one of the four horsemen. We don't need another massive government program to solve the problem.
Immigrants who come here to work should be welcomed. They are good for us. Getting a seal of approval from big brother is too costly.
Immigrants (legal or illegal) should not come here to collect welfare (aka Kidcare or whatever name).
Immigrants (legal or illegal) should be denied welfare.
Government resources should be targeted, not towards the 98% of hardworking immigrants but toward the 2% of terrorists and criminals. That is not now being done. Known immigrant criminals are reported to the police. The executive orders of Nixon/John Mitchell's INS are still in force to prevent law enforcement from apprehending these known criminals. Their only recourse is to forward the information to the INS. The INS bureaucracy is incompetent to do anything effectively. Apprehending known criminals is low priority for the INS. Protecting their turf in bureaucratic wars is top priority for them.
Oh, BTW, my suburb has reached an all time low in crime, Traffic accidents, DUI arrests, mortgage foreclosures (due to the shift from FHA to conventional). But property values are at an all time high, which means big property tax bonanza to the schools.
Considering your subsequent use of the term anti-
illegal immigrant to describe those in favor of stricter border enforcment, your above comment seems rather self-serving & transparent.
Very few of us are "anti-immigrant".
The worst part is that the parents have limited skills in which to earn income and pay taxes that contribute to their children's public education (not that they pay income taxes anyway).
What I find interesting is that many 1st generation Catholic immigrants (Irish, Italian & Polish) at the turn of the 20th century had smaller families as a result of dealing with the harsh economic climate. Nowadays, the 1st thing the illegals do is try and have as many kids as possible since the state picks up the tab on each one.
Ah, finally we expose ourselves. One thing you discover as you get a little older is that there isn't any grand conspiracy. People muddle through life (even execs at those big bad corporations) with barely any control over their home life.
The open borders policy is a result of lack of political will - it's how it's always worked throughout history. One can easily imagine the same dabate raging through Rome as the city filled with immigrants throughout the Empire.
The first stage is necessity: we really did need around 1m or so illegals to do the dirty work. Then the group gains limited political power - not themselves directly, but via politicians and others who hate the status quo. Then the numbers increase to such an extent that it is fait accompli.
That's where we're at today. If the biggest, richest state couldn't stop it 13 years ago, why would anyone imagine that it can be stopped now?
Here's a little advice: don't worry, be happy. Take a look at Rio, Mexico City, Lima, et al. Figure out a way to be part of the upper class - it shouldn't be too hard.
Well, duh. There is a case to be made for allowing in a greater number of immigrants -- but it should be done honestly and aboveboard, not by simply letting people routinely ignore the law.
I guess I'd better start practicing to become a street musician, cause I'm no good at racketeering, political assasination, drug running & graft.
No grand conspiracy. Where did I suggest that? Governments invariably seek reasons for their existence and to grow. Environments where a society is stable and prosperous are not conductive to governmental power and growth over and above economic and population growth. It's really human nature at work here.
Its been my long held belief that formalized, organized, conspiracies where people meet in secret to plot some insidious scheme are quite rare in the world. Always have been. Most groups/movements that are associated with conspiracies are really liked-minded people, with shared interests, similar backgrounds and similar ideologies working towards common goals--usually economic and political. This is more akin to the phenomenon of how fish school together when they are on the hunt for forage. But, it doesn't mean that the objectives and actions of such groups are not seditious, sinister, unconstitutional, treasonous or otherwise criminal.
The open borders policy is a result of lack of political will - it's how it's always worked throughout history. One can easily imagine the same dbate raging through Rome as the city filled with immigrants throughout the Empire.
I agree there. Observe though that the Roman Civilization lasted some 800 years. No small feat. So its not like their empire came tumbling down as soon at they became the most powerful people on the planet and got their first taste of wealth. It took centuries before the seeds of their destruction were planted and brought them down. When the Romans were unified, focused and disciplined they had little trouble defending their empire from outside tribes.
That's where we're at today. If the biggest, richest state couldn't stop it 13 years ago, why would anyone imagine that it can be stopped now?
You have to ask yourself how America was ever able to protect itself from foreign invasion for better than 200 years. What's changed?
If, for example, America's institutions and governmental apparatus were not heavily infiltrated by socialists/marxists over the last say 60 years or so, would America have much of a problem controlling its borders? I dont think so. If this cr*p happened during the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s (see Eisenhower) and 60s the U.S. government would have sent the military down to the border, rounded up the Illegals and told Mexico if they did not cease encouraging their people to invade America wed take them over.
One the defining points where things started to go off track in this nation was the passage of the 1966 Immigration Act sponsored by the Swimmer which opened up America to large scale 3rd World immigration for the first time in its history. What would have happened IF that legislation was never passed? Would the crisis of illegal immigration be as bad as it is today? In retrospect, that misguided Act was the proverbial camels nose under the tent.
I'll say this: success breeds prosperity, which breeds complacency, which breeds neglect and eventual destruction. We are at the latter stages of complacency right now IMO. You may be right that the die is cast and nothing can stop the nation altering immigration wave. The MMP though is evidence that there is still a lot of fight left in many Americans. Ive been looking for just such positive event for a long time. I wouldnt write off this country just yet.
First of all, I'll confess my expertise is Illinois. I have some experience with MN, WI, MO, KS, TX. No experience with AZ, CA, etc. A significant number (but not all) of the people less pro-immigrant than me are definitely anti-Mexican/Hispanic immigrant. Many of them and some who are not anti-Hispanic are anti-Moslem or anti-Asian immigrant. I have yet to meet someone who is truly anti-illegal Polish and Eastern European immigrant of which there are many in Chicagoland.
I'll confess that I lean libertarian. I do not like to ask the government for permission to work or do anything honest. I don't see how moving from Alabama to Chicago to find work, or from Chicago to Las Vegas, or from the city to the suburbs to find work is any different from moving from Cotija, Michoacan, Mexico to Chicago to work.
In contrast, I've known people who moved from Alabama to Chicago to collect welfare, not work, and from Chicago to Milwaukee to get even better welfare benefits, and then back to Chicago when Tommy Thompson tightened up the Wisconsin gravy train.
I've known (only a few) Eastern Europeans who came to Chicagoland to collect welfare. I've known many Puerto Ricans (citizens not immigrants) who've come to Chicago to collect welfare.
I've known many thousands of Mexican, Central and South American immigrants (legal and illegal) and I can't think of one who came here to collect government welfare. I can think of a couple who came here to freeload off their relatives. Sometimes their relatives tolerated it. Often the relatives effectively changed the freeloader's attitude. Sometimes they sent the freeloader back to Mexico.
I've known a very small, but highly visible, number of immigrants from South of the border who were felons fleeing the local police down there and who continued to be felons in Chicagoland. The big frustration of the police is that Nixon's executive order prevents the local police from effectively dealing with that problem. The late real mayor Daley took Nixon's executive order to federal court and the courts sided with Nixon and the INS bureaucracy against mayor Daley. That made the local police impotent in dealing with the small number of immigrants who are felons.
The Russian criminal immigrants (legal and illegal) are reputed to exploit Nixon's executive order to the extreme... taunting the local police "You can't touch me and referring me to the INS bureaucracy is a joke." (I have little firsthand experience with the Russians, unlike my extensive experience with Poles, Asians and Hispanics.)
I disagree. It is common for a freeper in the minority on a given topic (such as you on this particular topic) to feel this way. A good example are the "Let Terri Die" minority of freepers. They have been bitching that FR has become an all-Terri Schiavo site. Also, the third party people always complain around election time that FR is an "Elect Bush" site.
FR is as vibrant as ever.
I find that hard to believe. Most republicans I know liked Oberweiss' stand on illegal immigration but voted for #1 and #3 because they felt those candidates had a better chance, in this now very liberal state, of beating Obama.
It didn't help that the Catholic Lobby put Oberweiss through the wringer over some ill-advised remarks about Catholics he had made in years past. Or that the local liberal newspapers continually slammed Oberweiss over his immigrations stands. Your stories just don't compute Spintree.
The thousands of illegal immigrants I've known pay social security and income taxes, sales tax, gas tax, etc. They qualify but don't ask for income tax refunds. Historically illegal Poles, but not illegal Hispanics or Asians, have collected social security. Thus illegal Hispanics and Asians have kept social security solvent.
..many 1st generation Catholic immigrants...
Yes, there is a problem with the generation thing. First generation immigrant Hispanic Catholics (and Protestants) have the value system of honesty, hardwork, family as the safetynet, don't trust or accept anything from the government.
But as immigrants become Americanized in the 2d and 3d generation, they accept Hollyweird values of disrespect and independence from the family. (See the movie Spanglish.) To become Americanized is to switch from expecting the extended family to be the safety net to expecting the government to be the safety net.
When conservatives criticize immigrants for hanging on to their culture, those conservatives don't realize that for the immigrant, it is a choice between raising a daughter with family values or raising a daugher with Hollyweird values. The immigrants are making the right choice.
It's interesting that your libertarian leanings for less government are in direct contradiction with your liberal immigration views. This has always been one of the great contradictions of libertarianism.
Remember when Illinois used to be a reliably Republican state? Oh yeah, that was before IL was not home to a million or more amnestied Mexicans and illegal aliens.
Supporting illegal immigration and wanting smaller government is like trying to swim upstream in the rapids of a river. You aren't going to get very far....
You know Thousands of Illegals? You really are a trip in specious reasoning and serial exaggeration. The Illegals we see here in our IL town are large consumers of public assistance. You can see it right at the local food mart when they hand over their food stamps to the cashier and tie up the line for minutes on end as the cashier tries to validate the stamps.
And the idea that the few Illegal Aliens who do pay into social security under some kind of bogus or stolen social security number are helping support Social Security especially given their low wages is pure rubbish. Like all the subsidized welfare and public benefits they take advantage of, Illegal Aliens get out much more than they pay in.
And if our government finds that it needs an ever higher population to support the actuarially bankrupt democrat entitlements not even the population of China would suffice at some point in keeping social security, Medicaid and Medicare solvent. The solution is to radically restructure those programs with large elements of privatization--not throw more people at it.
You need to expand your definition of 'welfare' to include use of public health, educational, transportation & other public infrastructures without a commensurate tax contribution. Your total would then rise significantly.
Another tidbit for the good folks out there in Illinois: over 30% of the prison population in CA is reputed to be illegal immigrants, nearly all from south of the border.
Personally I know no east european illegal immigrants, so its understandably hard for me to get worked up about them. However, if there were a significant numer of them, I'm sure I would come to be considered by some to be anti-slav, or whatever term is used.
That's not fair skeeter! Why should ALL the associated costs and burdens that illegal aliens place on the already overburdened taxpayers be taken into account? It makes the job of spinning so much harder.....
My beef isn't with illegal immigration per se, it's with illegal immigration of people that possess sub-100 IQs. If we didn't have an offset from Asia, then we might be in trouble. However, if one were to return in 100 years or so, the bell curve spread will probably have the same characteristics as today, with the only difference being the ethnic makeup.
The US basis of law/culture/society allows certain individuals to excel. I think there will be enough inventiveness and economic growth to absord low-skill laborers. The pity was that we couldn't reach a new level of performance, but then maybe that's the way it has always been.
Unless you can effectively block out immigration like Japan, you'll be taking a step back for every step forward.
On the upside, I understand cash receipts from El Norte have surpassed oil as Mexico's no. 1 source of revenue. What a country.
Either you are a case study in subtleties or you have changed your views. A few posts ago you talked about how America will become more like Brazil and American culture as we know it will end. Now you appear to be saying we will muddle this mess and trend water through the dramatic demographic changes.
Its all idle speculation I know; and your concerns closely mirror mine. I do find it rather perplexing though.
Heh heh - PC old chap. Here's an example of both 'two-tier society' and 'we'll muddle through': There's a major street that runs through both Santa Ana and Westminster in Orange County. It's called 1st Street in Santa Ana and Bolsa Ave in Westminster.
Santa Ana is Hispanic and Westminster is Viet Namese. Both cities are largely immigrant communities, both experienced language barriers, both have had the same basic opportunities. The one big difference is that within a span of a mile or so, one community looks like Mexico while the other just finished a large street improvement project through the heart of 'Little Saigon'.
One community (guess which one) is a riot of commerce, while the other becoming a sleepy, dusty backwater. Now, where it gets interesting is who do the VN like to hire as their kitchen/grocery help?
That's what I meant by we'll carry on, but it will be a two-tier society. It doesn't have to be 'whites' sitting on top of the pyramid - it can be anyone who is more industrious and capable.
Very interesting analysis lemura.
I wonder though if even the Asians will be able to self-govern in the tradition of America's past system of governance once (let's say) the old guard is no longer dominant. Because of cultural differences that become more pronounced as the old structure fades away. Differences that led to the dissolving of the Rule of Law and thus the underpinnings of a free enterprise system conductive to economic prosperity.
The VN are hard-core Republicans; Chinese tend to vote Democratic, yet they too fully embrace individual initiative. The UC system is currently concerned about Asian 'over-representation' - they're something like 65% of the undergrad population.
The West was unique in that certain factors came together that enabled us to develop the society/culture that we currently enjoy. That being said, however, I don't think we have a monopoly on self-governance - these are principles that can taught/learned by anyone capable of understanding.
Those that 'get it' understand what it is and move quickly to adopt and adapt; those that don't merely replicate what they left behind.
At the local supermarket in Hanover Pk the #1 user of foodstamps, WIC, etc is white women. #2 is white men. Then Blacks. Then native born of Hispanic heritage, mostly Puerto Rican, not of immigrant ancestry. Eligible immigrants are last. I'm the guy that chooses to stand in the slowest line and observe others in all the lines. I'm the guy who speaks up to shame the foodstamp/WIC user.
Yes. There are some problems. Utopia is still out of reach. But the sky is not falling. Immigrants are not one of the four horsemen.
How many Hispanic voters were in your precinct? 2? I used to be a precinct captain in a heavily republican area during the same period. It was Phil Cranes' district. There were over 200 homes in my precinct and the rep/dem ratio of registered voters was about 70/30. Even though the democrat percentage was low that still meant numerically a lot of dem votes. Your story does not ring true given that hispanics, especially then, overwhelmingly vote democratic.
And why were you pushing Bush in 80' when Reagan, a true conservative, was on the ballot? You strike me as kind of a RINO. The kind I used to come across in the party, usually at GOP get togethers. I remember thinking back then, "what kind of republicans are this"?. Talking to a RINO was like talking to a democrat.
As a landlord I have had over 800 immigrants in my apartments in the past.
Well that explains a lot....if true.
I have found jobs for over 100 that were not my tenants, plus many that were.
You found jobs for over a 100 hispanics and then some huh. Hmm, What kind of jobs were they Spintree? Were you fronting for employers of Illegal Aliens? Sounds like it. Again, if true.
I have been part of organizing hundreds in political action on slum housing, police protection, etc.
Lost me there. It really is hard to take you seriously.
I guess we will find out soon enough!
I'll add that while there is no question as to the industriousness of Asians, their cultures are somewhat resistant to embracing notions such as human rights, diversity, and tend to be ethnocentric. This can adversely impact self-governance. And while Asian nations like Japan seem to have taken to democracy quite well, much of that I believe is due to America's strong influence on Japan.
The question is whether a religiously diverse country like India can become a "big Singapore" or "big Hong Kong" or will it become a "Yugoslavia".
The Hanover Park area I refer to is Schaumburg Twp precincts 10, 19, 22, 36, 38, 51, 86 (Cran's area). They averaged about 20 Hispanic voters per precinct. Only one 3d generation Hispanic lady in precinct 86 voted Democrat. Your implication is right in that Hispanics have a relatively low voter turnout.
Hispanics are neither naturally Republican or Democrat. In Mexico, PAN of Vicente Fox is the party of the Catholics and small businessmen. PRI is the party of labor unions and big business (Think of the Warren Buffets, Bill Gates and George Soros of Mexico). PRD is the party of the intelligentsia, TV and newspaper reporters and academics.
Prior to the first election of Fox, whcih was the first ever national defeat of PRI, polls were done of Mexicans in Chicago. 70% of Mexicans in the city supported PAN's Fox. 20% PRD. only 10% PRI. In the suburbs, 90% of Mexicans supported PAN's Fox. 9% PRI. Under 1% PRD. That is much more pro-PAN than Mexico itself. Thus Mexican immigrants are not "typical" Mexicans. At least in Illinois, they are more favorable to Catholic values and small business than the "typical" Mexican who remains in Mexico.
Just as whites in the city vote different from whites in the suburbs, so Hispanics in the suburbs are more "Republican". In the '60's the Republican Ogilvie organization of which I was a part reached out to Hispanics while the Democrat machine was very racist, especially ward committeemen Biesczat and Keane in my NW Chicago area. The result was that Hispanics in my part of the city, led by Hispanic businessmen, were more Republican than Poles in the same area. That included both Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and especially Cubans. Now granted, a lot of those Hispanic Republicans were Rockefeller Republicans. The only elected Hispanic officials were a Republican Alderman and a Republican County Superintendant of Education. But when Ogilvie put in the income tax and Conservative Democrat Dan Walker ran and governed as the most conservative Illinois governor in my lifetime, and Nixon seemed anti-Hispanic to the Hispancis, the many Chicago Hispanic Republicans switched to Democrat. A lot of that was due to the political skills of Democrat Ward Committeeman Dick Mell in positioning himself and the non-Biesczat.
In recent times Republican Gubernatorial candidate Jim Ryan has been the #1 anti-Hispanic politician in the Spanish media, especially LaRaza. This is due to his intentional framing of Rolando Cruz, who Jim Ryan knew to be guilty of nothing more than being a pothead and habitual liar. I am not aware of a single Hispanic who voted for Jim Ryan in 2002, including my wife.
Although Hispanics are "conservative" they do not vote on ideology. Most of them vote based on "friendliness"... who seems the most friendly to them. The Jim Ryans, Pete Wilsons, Pat Buchanans, etal come accross as unfriendly by their "tone". Consider how many Hispanics in Californika agreed with Pete Wilson on the issue but voted against him when they had voted for other Republicans in the past. Why? Peter Wilsom came accross as "unfriendly".
In contrast consider Chcago's Democrat Dick Mell local. He has the political skill to be anti-Hispanic to a group of racists and 20 minutes later go to a group of Hispanics and appear pro-Hispanic. And for 30 years both groups have stayed loyal to Mell. That illustrated that political skill wins a lot more votes that being right ont he issues. I vote ideologically. But most people, especially Hispanics factor in a lot more friendliness than ideology.