Posted on 10/28/2011 2:49:28 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
"The policies are important, but the rhetoric is sometimes the impediment. Sometimes—and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone—the way the message is communicated is harmful and has hurt Republicans."
Now, what does the word "rhetoric" mean?
rhet·o·ric /ˈrɛtərɪk/ Show Spelled[ret-er-ik]
noun
1.(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
2.the artor science of all specialized literary uses of languagein prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
3.the study of the effective use of language.
4.the ability to use language effectively.
5.the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
6.the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
7.(in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.8.(in older use) a work on rhetoric.
Origin: 1300–50; < Latin rhētorica< Greek rhētorikḕ(téchnē) rhetorical (art); replacing Middle English rethorik< Medieval Latin rēthorica,Latin rhētorica,as above
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric
What Marco Rubio is saying is that the policies that Republicans have announced with respect to illegal immigration are perfectly fine, but that the way that the ideas are being conveyed has hurt the GOP by unnecessarily alienating Hispanic voters. In other words, proposing a wall to protect the border and penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens is fine and dandy, but saying that "we need to keep those lazy Mexicans out before they all go drunk-driving, raping women, having anchor babies and going on welfare" does great harm to the GOP's ability to do well among Hispanic voters.
This is nothing new. In 1994, Proposition 187, which prohibited state funding of health care, public education and other social services for illegal aliens, was sent to California's voters for their approval. Initially, this commonsensical measure was fairly popular with Hispanic voters. But then RINO Gov. Pete Wilson started a ham-handed campaign for its approval, suggesting that Mexicans were crossing the border in order to leech off of California taxpayers and running TV ads with a voice ominously saying "they keep coming." This pissed off Hispanics in California, who not only voted overwhelmingly against the measure but then proceeded to vote for the Democrats in every California election since. (Prop 187, by the way, was approved by the voters, but was later struck down by the courts, and when Democrat Gray Davis was elected governor in 1998 he dropped the appeal, thus killing the law.) California Republicans could have proposed the same policy, but without the unnecessary rhetoric, and it would have been approved without simultaneously poisoning the GOP name among California Hispanics for a generation.
Marco Rubio is right: It is possible to protect the border from illegal-alien crossings, and to eliminate the incentives for illegals to cross in the first place, without insulting Mexicans in particular and Hispanics in general. Let's not cut off our nose to spite our face.
but saying that “we need to keep those lazy Mexicans out before they all go drunk-driving, raping women, having anchor babies and going on welfare”
And why should that message should offend any American citizen? It’s describing rampant behaviors of the foreign citizens invading us.
No sympathy with traitors who sympathize more with foreign invaders than their own country.
No. He is a protege of the Bushes, and it shows.
No. He is a protegee of the Bushes, and it shows.
Illegal Mexicans are invaders, waving the Mexican flag, birthing babies for free in our hospitals, cheering on the racist LaRaza, grubbing up our generous welfare benefits, running drugs and killing Americans.
Don’t you think we need to get this crap under control?
What is wrong with the Republicans? A Cuban-American is Hispanic the way an Israeli is Middle Eastern - in both cases, geography is rendered irrelevant by politics. Hispanics hate Cuban-Americans the way Arabs hate Israelis.
It's just another variation on the old "national origins" policies that existed from the 1920s to the 1960s. The only thing that's different is the preferred "nation".
Rubio is not hispanic, in the eyes of the Mexicans and other Latinos in the U.S.
Most of your friendly neighborhood lawn boys and cheap tarts have very little idea about the higher order civilization in our part of North America that makes settlement in California and the Southwest possible ~ but it's there and it's rare, and if it's not OURS we won't maintain the system.
Illegal immigration should be ended. Our borders should be secured. Period. One doesn't have to sound like a jackass. At the same time, it's not just Mexicans who cross that southern border. It's Hezbollah terrorists. Now why the hell is that not being mentioned.
The political class has this to say to you....AHHHH SHUT UP AND TAKE IT LIKE A PERSON. They have been saying this for years, at least that is the message I have been getting for quite some time.
“Now why the hell is that not being mentioned”
It often is,, and also, maybe because for every Hezbollah guy, maybe 100,000 Mexicans flood in, to drink and drive, rape, stab, sell dope, and drop anchor babies.
It doesn’t matter if they win elections after they co-opt, and are co-opted. I don’t care how loudly people say that there are major differences between the parties. The only differences is in marketing and approach. They govern the same way. When a Democrat pushes something Republicans like, but can’t get past their base, it passes easily. When the Republicans pass something they like, but can’t get it past the Democratic base, it passes easily. That is why D’s get away with being anti-war, but prosecute them more easily than Republicans. That is why Republicans advance the cause of monster govt, they rarely get anything but a bad article from the conservatives. Nice game they have going on, two wings of the same Progressive party.
I agree with your sentiment. Personally, I wish we'd cut off immigration a long time ago and made sure to never let a single illegal in. I don't believe we should be educating illegal children, giving them any social services, or catering to them at all. But, sadly, that ship has long sailed.
The bottom line is this - they are here now and this will not be a majority white country for long. Hispanics are making lots of babies, white people not so much. Minority populations are growing almost exponentially, white people are barely keeping even. We either find a way to win over some of these voters, or conservatism as we've known is vanishes and this becomes a very different nation.
We are already much more like Europe than we were just a generation ago, and it will become harder and harder for conservatives to win in states with rapidly increasing Hispanic populations. If we lose the Hispanic vote the way we do the black vote, conservatives are done when it comes to competing in many states like Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, NC and eventually Texas and all border states. We either find a way to win a decent chunk of these voters, or we're doomed. You can rail about that fact all you want, but it is true. Generally speaking, guys like Rubio are mostly just trying to say we should take the edge off. We can both be against illegal immigration, yet still sing the praises of hard working immigrants. We just have to be conscious of the demographic shift that is occurring and avoid completely alienating this block of voters to the point conservatives can't win anymore.
The answer is to deport all illegals. Stop giving them benefits, and jail anyone hiring them. Then there won’t be a “hispanic” surge in population, problem solved. Or we could just allow them to blow our nation to shreds. We need 500-800 Million people in this country. As a matter of fact, we have plenty of water, food, power, fuel and highways to fit them in comfortably.....that was sarcasm.
“And why should that message should [sic] offend any American citizen? It’s describing rampant behaviors of the foreign citizens invading us.”
Well, for one thing, not every Mexican who enters the U.S. is an illegal alien, and besides most Mexican illegal aliens are not lazy, nor are they serial drunk drivers, nor are they rapists, nor do they have babies on our side of the border, nor do they go on welfare. While it is eminently reasonable for us to insist that our laws be respected and to take affirmative steps to keep illegal aliens out (such as building a border wall) and to reduce the incentives for illegal aliens to stay here (such as prosecuting businesses that hire illegal aliens), it is stupid, counterproductive and un-American to paint a whole class of people with such a wide brush. Are you seriously telling me that you are unable to express your opposition to illegal immigration, open borders and amnesty proposals, and your support for protecting our border, without resorting to insults and prejudicial statements?
"The Republican Party needs to be the pro-legal immigration party," said Mr. Rubio. "We need to say, 'We believe in immigration and we think it's good for America.' But it has to be orderly, a system based on law, a system that works." He notes that people in Florida welcome Canadians who winter in their state and that farmers need agricultural workers.But his positions on immigration policies may be a hindrance. He opposes a path to citizenship for illegal aliens and opposes the Dream Act, which would provide a chance for some undocumented youth to become legal.
To late for that.
This thread is full of the politically tone deaf. Sensible is not allowed. The old adage, “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar” is lost on them.
There's probably a few racists masquerading as law-and-order types too.
Any attempt to protect the border and eliminate incentives for illegal will be resisted by the majority of Mexicans if not all Hispanics. For a FReeper to claim otherwise is naive, but for a politician (like Rubio) it is deliberate deception. Here are just two polls proving that.
In a Zogby poll of Mexican-Americans – including those born in the United States (LINK):
When asked “Should the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans be to Mexico or to the U.S.?” 68.8 percent of respondents said that it should be to Mexico.When asked, “If the U.S. gave permanent legal status to undocumented immigrants (migrantes indocumentados), do you think it would make your friends and family members more likely or less likely to go to the U.S. as indocumentados, or would it make no difference?” 56.2 percent of respondents answered “more likely.”
According to another Zogby poll of Mexicans (LINK):
Do you agree or disagree that the territory of the U.S. Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico?*This means only 28% of Mexicans believe that the U.S. Southwest belongs to the US (not Mexico) and only 35% of Mexicans believe that Mexicans do NOT have the right to enter the US as they please.Agree: 58 percentDo you agree or disagree that Mexicans should have the right to enter the United States without U.S. permission?
Disagree: 28 percent <= *
Not sure: 14 percentAgree: 57 percent
Disagree: 35 percent <= *
Not sure: 7 percent
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.