SB 1070 Opinion Is Good For Obama, Bad For Romney And Latinos
WASHINGTON -- Clothing its ruling in the language of respect for federal power, the U.S. Supreme Court has just unleashed state and local police to act freely and aggressively as federal immigration officers. The decision is bad news for the Romney campaign -- already struggling with the Latino vote -- because it will likely increase the sense of paranoia and oppression in an already beset but vast national community.
"It turns the police into immigration officers and that is a terrible narrative for the Latino community," said Maria Teresa Kumar of Voto Latino, a non-partisan organization that works to register Latino voters. "The headlines in the Hispanic media will be uniformly negative."
The problem for the Romney campaign is that the ruling upholds one of the most invasive features of the law in the eyes of many Latinos, who have expressed fear that police will use racial characteristics to identify suspects even if they claim they will not.
As the presumptive GOP nominee, Mitt Romney is trying to moderate his stands on immigration issues, but he is likely to lose voters whichever way he turns on this one. Praise the court and he offends Latinos; fault it and he offends social conservatives who have made a crackdown on the undocumented a key Tea Party plank.
Poor Romney...Just can't seem to catch a break with the Latino voters...But, hey, he "only needs a small percentage"...Right? Darn those Teabaggers...They just won't give him any room to flip-flop today...
Democracy4Sale wrote: Poor Romney...Just can't seem to catch a break with the Latino voters...But, hey, he "only needs a small percentage"...Right? Darn those Teabaggers...They just won't give him any room to flip-flop today...
It doesn't really matter... Romney is going to win anyway.
I remember when republicans were against things like forcing people to show their papers based on their race, giving the state more powers to circumvent fourth amendment safety's, etc. I miss that party.
Raees wrote: I remember when republicans were against things like forcing people to show their papers based on their race, giving the state more powers to circumvent fourth amendment safety's, etc. I miss that party.
You also missed the intent and language of the law.
Raees wrote: I remember when republicans were against things like forcing people to show their papers based on their race, giving the state more powers to circumvent fourth amendment safety's, etc. I miss that party.
No you don't miss that party- you have always been biased against republicans- I call tell by your posts.
We are talking about illegal aliens here - they are not Americans, never were. They broke into this country- in fact that's the first thing they did, was a criminal act. And by the way- while the vast majority of the illegals here are of hispanic origin, there are illegals here from India, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Africa- and even Europe.
I say check um all!
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Mitt Romney on Monday said states have a duty and a right to secure their borders even as he called for a bipartisan national immigration strategy.
The likely Republican nominee did not address the merits of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down key parts of Arizona's tough immigration enforcement law. But he used it as an opportunity to criticize President Barack Obama for inaction on immigration reform until recently.
Romney can wait till after Novenber 6 to spell out the details of his policy. Hopefully it'll be pro-American, instead of what we got now..... Pro-illegal alien.
Raees wrote: I remember when republicans were against things like forcing people to show their papers based on their race, giving the state more powers to circumvent fourth amendment safety's, etc. I miss that party.
No you don't miss that party- you have always been biased against republicans- I call tell by your posts.
Having voted Republican in the past, i can assure you that is simply not true.
Raees wrote: I remember when republicans were against things like forcing people to show their papers based on their race, giving the state more powers to circumvent fourth amendment safety's, etc. I miss that party.
No you don't miss that party- you have always been biased against republicans- I call tell by your posts.
Having voted Republican in the past, i can assure you that is simply not true.
That's the same thing LJ says- but I can tell you from reading both your and LJ's posts- when the party left you, it was because you both took a hard left turn.
We will nevertheless count you in along with LJ as the great conservative thinkers you so obiviously are.
Hey, Walking-Eagle, you are sooo full of brown stuff, I'm surprised you can see where you're going...
You can't tell squat about my political history, and the more you try, the more you prove how stupid and moronic you are.... I left the party because it took a RIGHT-[wing] turn... The idea of continuing to support a party of bigoted, religious, selfish, neo-con wackos just got to be more than I could stomach.
Democracy4Sale wrote: Hey, Walking-Eagle, you are sooo full of brown stuff, I'm surprised you can see where you're going...
You can't tell squat about my political history, and the more you try, the more you prove how stupid and moronic you are.... I left the party because it took a RIGHT-[wing] turn... The idea of continuing to support a party of bigoted, religious, selfish, neo-con wackos just got to be more than I could stomach.
You already told us about your political history... and personal history. Was married, voted Republican, lost some money during Bush, whined, whined, whined like a little girl and decided to switch to the entitlement party in hopes of getting even.
Darn those Teabaggers...They just won't give him any room to flip-flop today...
:thumbsup:
