CAN YOU THINK OF A SINGLE THING THE BANKSTER REGIME OF BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN DID FOR BLACK AMERICA AS THEY WERE SURRENDERING OUR BORDERS TO MEXICO?
A January article in the Post contained a list of "Bidenisms", folksy aphorisms that the candidate uses on the stump. One is: "My dad had an expression ... 'Joey, don't compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.''' Most voters already know that the president has his flaws and imperfections, but once voters get to know Biden's immigration record and his proposals, they may pull the level for Trump as the better alternative.
This is the power of decades of propaganda that has brainwashed African-Americans into thinking Democrats are the sole custodians of diversity and pluralism.
Why the Democrats are losing Latino support
If you were to ask casual consumers of news about the cause of racism in the U.S., they would most likely blame the Republicans and President Trump.
They will claim that President Trump referred to white supremacists in Charlottesville as "very fine people." They will mention bigoted MAGA-supporters. Some may equate Republicans with Nazis.
The list of misperceptions and falsehoods is interminable and has enabled the Democrats to develop a permanent voter base among most demographic minorities.
This is especially true for African-Americans, who, for almost half a century, have been voting overwhelmingly for Democrats.
African-Americans have suffered for decades from poverty, poor education, drug addiction, unemployment, crime, and an absence of a traditional family structure. Chicago is a war zone with gang violence and a city where African-Americans are victims of crimes.
The Democrats haven't resolved any of these issues despite being in power for ages, yet African-Americans continue to vote for Democrats.
This is the power of decades of propaganda that has brainwashed African-Americans into thinking Democrats are the sole custodians of diversity and pluralism.
So they vote for Democrats, perhaps thinking that that party serves as the least among evils.
The Democrats now take the African-American vote for granted.
When a black radio jockey urged candidate Joe Biden to answer questions pertaining to African-American issues, he curtly fired back with "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."
In Biden's mind, black people are his minions who are duty-bound to vote for him. If they dare question him, they are disloyal and a traitor to their race. This is the sort of thinking that slave-owners of old had.
These remarks were made on a radio show that has a considerable black audience, and it was even carried by the media, yet Biden managed to secure 90 percent of the black vote.
It is nothing short of astounding that the party that fought the Civil War in favor of slavery, which founded the Ku Klux Klan, and which opposed desegregation, is now supported by a huge majority of African-Americans.
The next target for the Democrats is Hispanics.
Hence, they are fervent advocates of open borders.
The goal is to allow the influx of mostly Hispanics into the U.S. and to resettle them in states where Republicans have a record of winning. The hope is that these new citizens will be welfare-dependent and hence will vote for Democrats. In time, they have a permanent voter base that makes elections meaningless. They seek a voter set-up much like in California and New York, where elections are held, but a potted plant with the letter "D" will win against the most capable, hardworking, and selfless Republican.
However, things may not be going as planned for the Democrats on that matter.
A recent Marist poll showed that at the end of his first year in office, only 41 percent of people approved of the job that Biden is doing as president.
Among these, an emphatic 65 percent among Latinos disapprove of Joe Biden, while a mere 33 percent of Latinos approve.
The overall low voter approval is obviously bad news for the Democrats in the short term, considering that the November 2022 midterms are not too far away.
But the poor showing among Hispanics is what will cause sleepless nights for Democrats because this is an impediment to their long-term goal of altering the demographic to ensure permanence in power.
So why are the Democrats failing with Hispanic voters?
The first reason:
The Democrats have been proponents for open borders.
Most people, including Latinos, desire a life where they can earn enough to provide a quality life for their families. They also desire upward mobility.
If you flood their neighborhoods with unvetted foreigners, the resources meant for citizens will be depleted. Jobs meant for citizens will go to migrants willing to work for lower wages. Educational and medical institutions will be overwhelmed. Since there was no form of vetting, there will be a spike in crimes.
If you are a Latino citizen, will you be pleased by all of these problems just because migrants happen to be of the same race as you?
The second reason: Among the roughly 63 million Latinos in the U.S., 77 percent are Christian, and the rest are Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, of indigenous faiths, or agnostic. Only 2 percent are atheists.
The Democrats have been fanatic proponents of abortion, gay "marriage," and various other LGBT causes that are generally not approved by Christians. Most Democrats, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have frequently displayed disdain for Christianity. Entertainment shows created by liberal Democrats also frequently mock Christianity.
If you are a person of faith for whom the traditional way of life matters, would you support a party that wants to dismantle it all?
The third reason.
The modern Democrat party has many vocal members such as Sens. Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, and members of the Squad, who are proud socialists.
Most Latinos have either themselves experiences the evils of socialism or have heard from their relatives abroad about its perils. They know how economic systems collapse due to socialism. They know how high inflation owing to socialistic policies leads to poverty and despondency.
The modern Democrat also has a proclivity for totalitarianism.
Under the Democrats, basic rights such as the choice to consume medicine or take a vaccine as well as freedom of movement are at risk following the COVID-19 pandemic. The Democrats frequently use "wokeness" as an excuse to police speech and "cancel" those who dare to disagree with the groupthink. The Democrats brand dissenters or those who participate in protests as domestic terrorists.
Most Latinos, especially those who originate from socialist or communist countries such as Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba, know how the dictators rule with an iron fist to suppress freedoms and human rights and cause death and destruction. They see the behavior of Democrats as warning signs.
In fact, the keenness for freedom and prosperity caused them to take the U.S. as their home.
Why would they support a party that wants to implement a political ideology that brought them nothing but sorrow?
The reason the Democrats failed to see these obvious challenges with Latinos is that they have plunged so deeply into identity politics that they fail to respect and recognize the individual. They see only demographic groups, and worse still, they see Latinos as a single group, so their understanding of these groups is based on racist stereotypes that emanate from their bigoted minds.
They think of Latinos as impoverished, unskilled, and poorly educated people who will survive on handouts, which will make them permanent Democrat voters.
The poll proves how completely erroneous the Democrats are on every level.
It is now up to the Republicans to take advantage of this and show everyone, including Latinos, that they are the party of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
Will they rise to the occasion?
Surge in Illegal Aliens, 500% Increase in Some U.S. Ports of Entry
Judicial Watch Corruption Chronicles
The agency’s own statistics certainly contradict that, showing that the southern border region is as porous and vulnerable as ever. Other entry ports that saw large hikes in Central American illegal immigrants during the first two months of this fiscal year include Del Rio, Texas (269%), El Centro, California (216%) and Rio Grande Valley, Texas (154%). The Border Patrol breaks the stats down by “family unit” and illegal immigrants under the age of 18, referred to as “Unaccompanied Alien Children” or UAC. The Rio Grande Valley port of entry topped the list in both categories with 8,537 family units and 6,465 UACs during the two-month period. In all, the nation’s nine southern border crossings saw an average of 173% increase in family units and a 106% increase in minors during the short period considered.
Some of the illegal immigrants are Mexican nationals, but the overwhelming majority comes from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. The government records show that somehow 4,450 family units from El Salvador evaded our topnotch border security and entered the United States in a period of only two months. Guatemala and Honduras had 3,934 and 3,203 respectively. Mexico had 538 family units. Of interesting note is that, during this period, the Border Patrol reports 35,234 apprehensions in the region of foreigners labeled by the government as “Other Than Mexican” or OTM. This is a term used by federal authorities to refer to nationals of countries that represent a terrorist threat to the U.S.
. . .
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/12/surge-in-illegal-aliens-500-increase-in-some-u-s-ports-of-entry/
OBOMB OPERATED AND FUNDED THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY OF LA RAZA 'The Race' NOW CALLING ITSELF UNIDOSus OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
Unlimited immigration. Obama issued an unconstitutional executive order – an action he repeated routinely to counter Congressional action – that instituted mass immigration of poor, uneducated third-world people into the U.S., not to assimilate with our culture but to keep their own and demand that U.S. taxpayers subsidize them. Deportations of illegal immigrants under the new policy were dramatically reduced, even as scores more poured across the southern border as the number of border patrol agents decreased.
The Unhinging of America
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/08/the_unhinging_of_america.html
Since my return from the war in Korea (1950-53) I have witnessed America sink into a state of insanity unknown in its history:
Kids shooting classmates at school, people like zombies gazing at little screens while they walk, stand, sit, shop, talk, drive cars, watch TV telling them what to think, women blaming men for not being treated like men, men having their genitals “replaced with vaginas,” women leaving dependent children behind to join the military, mothers having their babies killed when they are ready to be born . . .
By the 1980s the moral and cultural swamp that America was sinking into made me wave red flags in newsletters I published. The acceleration toward and past the turn of the century has been breathless! Many Americans have wondered what happened to America?
Well, to begin with, anti-American activists have pushed hard to fulfill a mission launched by early 20th century Marxists to establish a new world order. It would be a God-free world under a global government run by amoral men smarter than everybody else in the world, past and present. Soon after the start of the 21st century, Barack Obama, latest edition of this breed of visionary, positioned himself to lead the team in Washington to help “transform America” – make it ready, that is, for the new world order.
There has never been a place in my mind for anyone in public office who would harm America and the people he or she is elected or appointed to serve, which is the inevitable consequence of pushing for a moral-free, God-free world. Such action, no matter how packaged, serves evil. They who use their talents to harm their fellow human beings – they’re known as traitors – are placed by Dante in the deepest circle of hell [Inferno].
Now there was someone who wanted to be president who could and would utilize Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book that salutes the devil in its opening pages – to take down America, while pretending to make it better than ever!
Could Obama in truth and honesty have, as president, served “one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all”? Could he have been sincere when he took the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”? I don’t think so.
My worst fear, that Americans might lose their country if they did not stand up to and shout down the God-haters and Leftists undermining their country – what culture warriors have been fighting for decades – seemed closer than ever to becoming a reality.
Among the warriors “with balls” who saw what was happening, the firebrand Andrew Breitbart rallied converts and fighters against political traitors scheming to destroy America, a first step in establishing their New World Order. (I called it Global Oz.) By the time Breitbart crashed into media and news reporting, a bloated and flabby federal government had enabled the anti-American Obama to run for president. Breitbart was ruthless in exposing this two-faced candidate for president. Shortly after he pledged to release a video showing college-age Obama alongside notorious Weather Underground terrorists, Breitbart died in Los Angeles.
And so a treacherous candidate for president beat a “she’s-not-fit-to-be-president” (Obama.’s words) Hillary Clinton to the White House. Well, Hillary became part of the “America-transforming" team as Secretary of State and Obama, with solemn face and ready platitude, repeated the lie that he would unify America and transform it into a better place for all.
The deeds did not match the words. Regarding unity, Obama stoked the fires of racial division, using his bully pulpit to turn every news event that could be spun into “discrimination against blacks” into an official denunciation of racism. And the corporate media did their part to help bring about a hatred of cops that heedlessly endangered the lives of men and women who daily put their lives on the line to ensure the safety of a public increasingly divided.
Regarding improving the lives of all, the following overview of Obama’s “transformation of America” is based on “The 10 Ways Obama has actively sought to destroy America” by J. D. Heyes (Natural News, December 25, 2015):
ObamaCare was sold on false pretenses by people who knew it wouldn’t work as promised. Failed scheme or intentional failure? The bill was so sloppily crafted that Democrats were basically signing blank sheets of paper when they rushed it through Congress. [“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it,” said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.] ObamaCare’s designers precipitated a constitutional crisis with a provision to cut subsidies for states that didn’t set up health-care exchanges – a provision that would have killed the entire program stone-dead if it had been enforced as written. And whoever was uninsured that did not enroll had to pay an annual penalty fee!
Unlimited immigration. Obama issued an unconstitutional executive order – an action he repeated routinely to counter Congressional action – that instituted mass immigration of poor, uneducated third-world people into the U.S., not to assimilate with our culture but to keep their own and demand that U.S. taxpayers subsidize them. Deportations of illegal immigrants under the new policy were dramatically reduced, even as scores more poured across the southern border as the number of border patrol agents decreased.
The Constitution. Obama was a bigger enemy of our founding document than any president in history. Acting dictatorially, Obama unconstitutionally “legislated by executive order” whenever his will was in conflict with that of Congress or the constitution. [His “liberal” activist judges would back him up, if needed.]
Military madness. Obama pushed social experimentation in the military to a level that could cause lasting damage, such as permitting people to serve who have no idea what sex they are, and allowing women to serve in combat roles despite increases in injuries, mental health issues, effectiveness and morale problems.
Packing the federal courts. Obama “packed” the federal court for the D.C. Circuit with activist, like-minded judges [who place themselves above the Law of the Land they are charged to uphold].
Economic damage. Obama issued more regulations than any president before him, with tens of billions in burdensome new costs such as those incurred by the expensive EPA regulations. His packed D.C. Circuit ruled against states suing to get those rules tossed.
Changes to society. Obama’s open-border policy and unlimited importation of third-world poor and Middle Eastern “refugees” [a gateway to anti-American terrorists] could change the face of the country, culturally and economically.
To object to any of this insanity is a way to get hit with a legal penalty.
The founders of our country and its legion of heroes surely tossed and turned in their graves over the America they had struggled, sacrificed, and died for.
If there is a silver lining to the dark clouds hanging over America it is the hope that the young of every description will turn on the mindless haters of America and launch a course correction. A reset for any semblance of progress starts with a return to the Constitution and the forces that inspired it, which include age-independent Judeo-Christian wisdom.
Anthony J. DeBlasi is a veteran and lifelong defender of Western culture.
Image credit: Abductit, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0
Biden and the Immigration Trap
'Uncle Joe' Agonistes
By Andrew R. Arthur on May 21, 2020
On Tuesday, the Washington Post ran an article detailing the struggles confronting the campaign of presumptive Democratic nominee for president Joe Biden with respect to immigration. There are a few things that the article leaves out, but it is notable (and somewhat shocking) for what it contains. What it ultimately shows is that the former vice president is boxed into an immigration trap.
Specifically, the article details the competing forces that are pulling "Uncle Joe" on immigration as he seeks to wrest the White House from Donald Trump (whose immigration stance, the paper admits, helped propel him to the presidency in 2016).
On the one side is the presumptive candidate's desire to capture the votes of white blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all won by Trump in the last election), while on the other is his need to turn out the Hispanic vote, particularly in Florida and Arizona. The article states that Latino voters "are expected to become the country's largest nonwhite voting bloc this fall."
Although the Post alludes to Biden's immigration proposals (which are somewhat out there, as I have described here, here, and here), and discusses his more outré ideas, such as suspending deportations for his first 100 days in office and then deporting only felons (which would essentially nullify much of the Immigration and Nationality Act), the Post simultaneously fails to note that those proposals would likely not resound with much of the voting populace, while at the same time contending that these policies don't go far enough for "significant segments of his own party".
Those "segments" are, the paper contends, clamoring for Biden to commit to "removing criminal penalties for those who cross the border illegally, removing barriers from the border [,and] abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement." There is likely a reason that Biden does not want to talk about those ideas on the campaign trail.
Polls don't show support for Biden positions
Polling from August 2018 — when the "Abolish ICE" fever was likely cresting — showed only 24 percent of voters supported the idea, with Democrats, Republicans, and independents staking out that position about equally. Some 40 percent disagreed, while 34 percent had no opinion.
Not to say that Democrats wildly supported the agency — 57 percent of Democrats had an unfavorable view of ICE, with an equal percentage of Republicans in favor of it, and 46 percent of independents took no view. Many of those opposed to abolition but who also don't like ICE likely were concerned about the law of unintended consequences, and by May 2019 Buzzfeed News reported: "'Abolish ICE' Was The Call Of Last Summer. 2020 Democrats Have Moved On".
Further, in July 2019, The Hill noted that a poll found "a plurality of voters, 41 percent, thought those crossing the border illegally should face criminal punishment, while 32 percent said it should just warrant a fine." With respect to independents, 36 percent favored criminal penalties, while "33 percent ... think it should be treated as a misdemeanor, with just a fine as punishment."
I note that this response shows a certain misapprehension of the current state of the law (initial illegal entry is already a misdemeanor, with a fine as an optional but rarely, if ever, imposed punishment, and most of those prosecuted are sentenced merely to time served while awaiting prosecution), suggesting that even those voters — if they knew the facts — would actually want stricter punishment than most aliens who have entered illegally already receive. No wonder the former vice president does not want to discuss the issue, let alone make it a key point for his campaign.
On barriers at the border, the polling is a bit more mixed. In February 2019, Gallup reported that six in 10 Americans opposed a border wall, but that poll was taken directly after a bruising government shutdown that largely focused on the issue. I will note that last Monday, KXAN (the NBC affiliate in Austin, Texas) released a poll showing that excitement for Donald Trump in Texas swamped enthusiasm for Biden in the Lone Star State. Most significantly:
When broken down by party, 19.5% of Democrats said they were extremely excited about Biden and 22.6 said they were "not that excited." Meanwhile, 49.4% of Republicans said they were "extremely excited" about supporting Trump and 9.5% reported they were not that excited about him.
Texas and Arizona are currently the primary sites for new border wall construction, and if Texans were that opposed to what is and has been the president's key immigration proposal, it would likely be reflected in their lack of enthusiasm. It does not seem to have moved the needle, however, or if it did, it is in Trump's favor.
I will note that I spoke on the issue in a debate in February before a largely liberal crowd, and opposition to the wall was an applause point (from an audience that all but defined the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" on the issue), but a lot has changed in three months. The Post itself reported on April 28 that 65 percent of Americans were in favor of a temporary suspension in immigration during the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, with 34 percent opposed.
Polling found that 83 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of independents were in favor of temporary restrictions, and Democrats were split 49-49 on the issue. Significantly, 67 percent of whites, 61 percent of "nonwhites" (presumably including Latinos), and a majority of 18- to 29-year-olds were in favor. Now again, "temporary suspensions on immigration" and "border wall construction" are two different things, but an influx of illegal entrants during the (traditional) illegal travel season of April to December while lockdowns are still in place could tie the two issues in voters' minds, and gubernatorial inter-state travel restrictions may have done so already.
And voters stuck at home as a result of Wuhan coronavirus restrictions could be only temporarily less inclined to support the entry of aliens, legal or otherwise. That said, the transit of the illness from China could give them pause to take a slightly more charitable view toward Donald Trump's opposition to open borders.
Sound tough on China, or not?
Lest you think I am casting aspersions with respect to the last point (I am not, and consider anyone who blames any American — citizen or immigrant — for the virus to be an idiot), I am really just channeling the former vice president. The Post article on Biden notes: "Some were alarmed when the Biden campaign began airing an ad in battleground states that accused Trump of having 'rolled over for the Chinese' amid the pandemic and 'let in 40,000 travelers from China.'" That is an apt description of the response to that ad on the part of progressives.
In particular, an April 23 Politico article captioned "Biden ad exposes a rift over China on the left: The former vice president's effort to hit Trump as soft on Beijing is backfiring among parts of his base" states:
Joe Biden's effort to outflank President Donald Trump on China is leading to blowback from within his own political base.
Some worry the rhetoric in a new Biden campaign ad could spur anti-Asian bias already on the rise because of the coronavirus pandemic. Others argue that Biden's effort to sound tougher on China than Trump could backfire diplomatically in the long run.
...
"I acknowledge and understand the need and desire to defeat and beat Trump, however, my question is 'Who is the Biden campaign willing to sacrifice along that way?'" said Timmy Lu, executive director of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment.
So why did Biden release the ad? Because he was in a box over his earlier statements criticizing the president for his response to the Wuhan coronavirus the day that the White House announced restrictions on travel from the People's Republic of China. Specifically, Biden, campaigning in Iowa, stated: "This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria and xenophobia — hysterical xenophobia — and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science." (Curiously, the YouTube link to the video of those comments states: "Video unavailable, This video has been removed by the uploader." Hmmm.)
The Post notes that Biden has sought insight into handling the issue of immigration as a candidate from, among others, Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.). Casey fought off Republican Lou Barletta — an immigration hawk — in a 2018 challenge for Casey's senate seat, and:
He urged Biden to emphasize the economic benefits of immigration while pledging to secure the southern border to keep drugs and criminals out.
"You have to make it very clear that you stand for border security — and not just that you stand for it, but that you voted for it," Casey said, citing past measures that have won Democratic backing.
But, at the same time, he said most voters want an immigration system that is humane and fair. The separation of families at the border was a wake-up call for some voters, Casey said.
I am not sure how that border security advice squares with Biden's promise that "the only deportations that will take place" under his administration "are commissions of felonies in the United States of America" (meaning that Mexican cartel members who enter illegally will not be deported, for example), but for some reason the Post fails to mention the discrepancy.
That said, such advice is easier given to the former vice president than it will be swallowed by the American people, because of Biden's record.
I would posit initially that recommendations like Casey's are likely the reason that Biden's immigration proposals begin:
It is a moral failing and a national shame when a father and his baby daughter drown seeking our shores. When children are locked away in overcrowded detention centers and the government seeks to keep them there indefinitely. When our government argues in court against giving those children toothbrushes and soap. When President Trump uses family separation as a weapon against desperate mothers, fathers, and children seeking safety and a better life.
The Obama-Biden administration's record
Again, easily said. It will, however, be very difficult for Biden to distance himself from some very similar policies enacted under the "Obama-Biden administration".
There is likely a reason why Biden does not (directly) fall back on the "kids in cages" trope that has become a standard for tendentious discussions of immigration by political hacks. As I have previously noted:
Snopes (not exactly a Trump-friendly outlet) examined the following fact: "The Obama administration, not the Trump administration, built the cages that hold many immigrant children at the U.S.-Mexico border." They deemed that statement "true", explaining:
Pictures of children behind chain-link fencing were captured at a site in McAllen, Texas, that had been converted from a warehouse to an immigrant-detention facility in 2014. Social media users who defended Trump's immigration policies also shared a 2014 photograph of Obama's Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, touring a facility in Nogales, Arizona, in 2014, in which the fencing could be seen surrounding migrants there as well. That picture was taken during a spike in the number of unaccompanied children fleeing violence in Central American countries.
That said, there is a direct line from "children ... locked away in overcrowded detention centers and the government [that] seeks to keep them there indefinitely", who cannot access "toothbrushes and soap" and the decisions of the previous administration to erect fencing in Border Patrol processing centers to protect unaccompanied alien children (UACs). One that Biden would likely prefer to be forgotten.
And a direct line to the Obama-Biden administration's 2014 "blanket policy to detain all female-headed families, including children, in secure, unlicensed facilities for the duration of the proceedings that determine whether they are entitled to remain in the United States," which prompted Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to find President Obama's Department of Homeland Security in breach of the Flores settlement agreement in July 2015.
Plus, as I have previously noted ad nauseam, the fact that UACs were stuck in the conditions Biden describes had everything to do with Congress's (and especially congressional Democrats') failure to provide funding Trump and his acting Homeland Security secretary had sought for more than a month, and nothing to do with a volitional decision by the administration to keep them there.
These facts may have been elided by a compliant press (the Post did not mention them at all in its Biden immigration piece), but I doubt that they will escape notice during a presidential campaign when the president and independent interest groups can throw money at ads highlighting them.
Pandering to Latino voters
Then, there is the pandering by Biden and his surrogates themselves. Much of Biden's outreach to Latino voters appears to focus on immigration, but is that really the most important issue to those voters?
In a June 2019 survey by Unidos US, "jobs and the economy" was the most important issue an ideal candidate would address (23 percent) for 1,854 eligible Latino voters in Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, and Texas, followed by "healthcare" (17 percent) and then "immigration" (15 percent). "Gun violence" (8 percent) and "climate change" (7 percent) together equaled that total.
BLOG: OBAMA FUNDED AND OPERATED LA RAZA 'The Race" NOW CALLING ITSELF UNIDOSUS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. IT IS A MEX FASCIST ANTI-AMERICAN POLITICAL MOVEMENT FOR SURRENDER OF AMERICA TO MEXICO.
Unidos US, for those who are not familiar, is the current incarnation of the "National Council of La Raza", which bills itself as "the nation's largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization". Hardly a MAGA front group.
Given these numbers, it is no surprise that the Atlantic magazine in February stated that 30 percent of Latino voters support the president, in an opinion piece captioned "Latino Support for Trump Is Real: And that's a problem for Democrats" (not to be confused with the outlet's January 2020 article captioned "Democrats Should Be Worried About the Latino Vote: Political organizers have a warning for the 2020 candidates").
In this vein, in early May, Slate ran an article captioned "Biden Has a Real Latino Problem", which stated:
A recent Latino Decisions poll reveals a clear enthusiasm gap among Latinos for both Biden and the 2020 election itself, with only 49 percent of registered voters currently committed to choosing Biden over Trump, and just six out of 10 planning to go to the polls in November.
That article focuses on Biden's initial reluctance to distance himself from what the outlet deems "the controversial immigration policy of the first two years of the Obama administration" (perhaps too good a sales job by a president whose rhetoric on removals did not match his actions), and Biden's inability to present himself to Hispanic voters due to the current pandemic.
Speaking of which, Slate notes that: "According to the Latino Decisions poll, almost half of all respondents approve of Trump's handling of the coronavirus crisis, with 47 percent saying Trump was delivering 'clear and helpful' information about the pandemic." Again, showing that "immigration" is not the only concern of Hispanic voters.
Back to the pandering, however. The Post notes that Biden's "wife Jill, who is learning Spanish while stuck at home by the pandemic, has begun meeting weekly with small groups of Latino members of Congress, taking notes on a range of issues to share with her husband" (I don't have the heart to tell her they speak English), and the article is accompanied by a photo of Biden "at a campaign stop at King Taco in Los Angeles, with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti".
The paper also reports that "Biden campaign officials have promised to significantly increase outreach to Latinos and further diversify the staff now that they have raised more money, although," the Post notes, "they declined to provide target numbers."
I suppose that a Spanish-speaking spouse, an ethnically diverse staff, and a documented hankering for regional cuisine may win Biden some votes, but the fact is he is stuck in an immigration box.
If he ties himself to the "Obama-Biden" administration on the issue, it appears that he will alienate both immigration activists and those who favor the Trump administration's reversal of those policies. But, if he panders to those activists, he will likely turn off many of the voters in swing states who supported Trump in 2016 (and especially those who were swayed by the now-president's promises of border security and immigration limitations).
A January article in the Post contained a list of "Bidenisms", folksy aphorisms that the candidate uses on the stump. One is: "My dad had an expression ... 'Joey, don't compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.''' Most voters already know that the president has his flaws and imperfections, but once voters get to know Biden's immigration record and his proposals, they may pull the level for Trump as the better alternative.
No comments:
Post a Comment