RGV Gets That Loving Feeling for Hilaria
February 13th, 2008, 1:17 pm · 11 Comments · posted by Joaquin
Give it up for Hillary! I thought her speech this morning in McAllen at a festive rally was quite good as Hillary speeches go. The Rio Grande Valley in general adores the Clintons and the crowd at the McAllen Civic Center was dishing out plenty of love for their candidate.
I’m guessing Sen. Clinton was feeling it because it seemed as if she spoke with more emotion and sincerity than is normally the case. It didn’t seem that Hillary refocused or honed her standard stump speech much from ones she has given for some weeks now. The pundits keep saying she needs to retool her message to catch up with the galloping Barack Obama, but it seemed like the usual lines today in McAllen, but they were said with a bit more oompfh.
Clinton did throw in a couple of Valley-oriented lines in her stumper today. She promised to bring a veterans’ hospital to the region, which is such a shop-worn pledge at this point that the locals just clap without thinking because we know that, yea, of course they have to promise the vets a hospital. It’s like a prez candidate going to south Florida and promising to boot Castro out of power.
The senator also promised to push immigration reform that would bring humanity for the undocumented, (but no drivers’ licenses, por favor), as well as added border security. Good, we’re all for that, so those are popular points to tout here. She went back in time a bit to recall her days as a young political organizer who registered voters in South Texas, (including McAllen, she said), for the 1972 presidential campaign of George McGovern. In fact, you know those “35 years of experience” Hillary is always promoting, well, one of those places where it all started was right here.
Anyway, watching the Hillary rally on TV was good fun, although you have to wonder how much structural reinforcement those event platforms need, what we all of the local politicos crammed like tamales in a cacerola to get on stage with the presidential candidate. Hey, I want to give a shout out to my Tio Polo the JP who somehow got a space up there behind Hilaria. I got so excited that I thought of calling my dear tio on his cell to confirm it was really him, but I refrained because it would be embarrasing, after all, to have someone lip read JP Polo saying, “Si, mijo, it’s me,” while Hillary talked about bringing universial health care to America. Â
And how about Valley congressman Ruben Hinojosa, who shared mike time with Clinton. Rep. Ruben got so caught up in the moment that when he announced Hillary would be back in the Valley next week for an even bigger rally at the McAllen football stadium, he blurted out: “And we’re going to have 50,000 people there!”
What, we have the Rose Bowl here now? You know, back in the 1990s when I went to a huge Weslaco-Donna football game at the McAllen stadium and all the fans were crammed in there like tamales in a cacerola, I recall the attendance being announced at 15,000. Looks Rep. Ruben was only off by 35,000 or so in anticipating the McAllen stadium crowd next week for Hilaria.
It’s all in good fun. We await for The Obama to come to our neck of the mesquite woods by month’s end. Tiene que. Barack has his two slices of bread in the toaster warming up, but Hillary isn’t toast just yet, and won’t be unless Obama can get to around 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in Texas in the March 4 primary, and that ain’t happening unless his campaign tries bery, bery hard in the Balley.
Maybe Barack can do a rally at Brownsville’s Sams Stadium. I bet we can cram 50,000 people into that joint.
Joaquin Tijerina, Chisme Blogger
February 14th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
It seems that we have a contest going here to see which one of the two Democrats can promise the most. I don’t think you will ever see many of the things promised actually delivered, including the VA facility, but there is one promise that you can take to the bank. As soon as a Democrat comes into power there will be an AMINESTY BILL for all the illegals here in America. Let’s see here…how did you put it…would bring humanity for the undocumented. Yes, a huge underclass to vote Democrat for the next three to four generations. They will need increased housing assistance, food stamps and of course, free health care and medicine. After all, its the right thing to do. Let’s not forget that we will have to increase bi-lingual education nationwide to keep this underclass down as long as we possibly can, because as soon as they become educated taxpayers, they will start voting Republican. The only thing I have not heard from these two Democrats is how we ae going to pay for all this humanity.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:21 am
But, oh my friend, as your favorite Republican John McCain would say, the next president, be it McCain or Obama or Clinton, will during their tenure likely push for some sort of legalization for some of the undocumented immigrants in this country. And with likely more Democrats to be elected to the House and Senate, there’s a reasonable chance it will get through.
Sorry to say, my friend, that your virulent anit-immigrant/nativist views didn’t have much currency in presidential politics this year, in fact, none at all to speak of.
So, you and your ilk whine on, but are getting not much of anywhere if this season’s presidential politics are any gauge.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Why does the anti-immigrant rhetoric have to be so hateful? Isn’t there a way to express those sentiments that doesn’t come across as bigoted and rude? Why the sarcasm and gross over-generalizations? Really, every immigrant wants housing assistance, increased food stamps and free medical care? I think you’re forgetting about the HUGE amount of immigrants that swim the river (and will climb the Wall/Fence) every day just to come over here to WORK an 8 hour day so they can buy housing and food and healthcare for their families. Many, many immigrants are very proud people with incredibly strong work ethics—all they want is a legal way to WORK, not handouts from the government. The problem is there is no legal way for laborers from Mexico to work here except marriage. And, as long as the wages they can make on this side dwarf those they can make in Mexico, they will risk federal prison to come. So, we can waste money on walls that won’t work, imprison more immigrants for crossing (also expensive), and make the laws even more impossible for them to legally work here, OR we can actually create legal programs, tax them!!!, and give them opportunity to work for the things they want. They want to work, but if we continue to not let them, they will continue to swim across 9 months pregnant so their children can be born on American soil. I KNOW Taxpayer doesn’t like that. Amnesty is not a dirty word, but now it has become one thanks to Lou Dobbs and the Republicans. But, without a legal way for laborers to work in our country, our borders will remain porous and unsecure and our industries will continue to face labor shortages.
Taxpayer, why don’t you try a less hateful way of making your point. Amazingly, I have heard similar points made in a thoughtful and respectful way. Try it.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Valley Newcomer: The reason immigration talk from the nativists is hateful is because they’re generally hateful people. Look, the column above just makes brief mention of immigration, and the knucklehead has to go on his typical rant about immigrants.
Wow, we’re impressed, dude, that you know how to use THE UPPER CASE KEY. Real smart guy, obviously.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Google: Larry Sinclair and Obama
Obama and Cult
Check the chicago sun times and tribune “Obama and Rezko
February 16th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Typical LEFT WING attack - you can’t counter the arguement so you start the personal attacks. You make great Democrats, you should be proud. My motivation is to have a lawful, fair immigration policy, and a immigrant workforce that will pay taxes and be a minimum drag on society. Period. I have no doubt that most of these folks who, as you say, swim the river, are good, hard working people, but why do they get first shot at citizenship over someone from Europe, Asia, or Africa, who are also good hard working people, but can’t swim over to America. You can call me what ever names you want, but I simply do not want people who are breaking the law to get priority over people who are following the law and coming here legally. Unforturately for you, most of America does have respect for the law, and they have a problem with people here illegally getting Aminesty, and first dibs on citizenship.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I know that most of the folks reading this blog are not interested in the facts, but if you are I suggest looking at > http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back503.html
Here are a few facts:
Amnesty benefits neither our society nor those being amnestied. An Immigration and Naturalization Service study found that after living in the United States for 10 years, the average amnestied illegal alien had only a seventh grade education and earned less than $9,000 a year. Amnestied illegal aliens have no sponsor to support them financially. Instead, by enacting an amnesty, Congress places a staggering financial burden on American taxpayers to support those amnestied.
According to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, the total net cost of the 1986 IRCA amnesty (direct and indirect costs of services and benefits to the former illegal aliens, less their tax contributions) amounted to over $78 billion in the ten years following the amnesty.
Use of the welfare system varies significantly by country. In 2001, immigrants from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America had the highest use rates, while those from South Asia, Western Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Canada had the lowest.
Households headed by illegal aliens receive welfare, primarily Medicaid, on behalf of their U.S.-born children. In 2001, for example, the value of benefits and payments received by illegal alien households averaged over $1,000. This is considerably less than the $2,200 received by legal immigrant households on average, so one unintended consequence of legalizing illegal aliens would be a significant increase in welfare costs.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:42 am
while we americans beat each other up about immigration the rich ruling class mexicans in mexico and rotten corrupt mexican government officals just laugh at us its mexico fault that they wont provide for there mexican citizens that abandon mexico by the millions if mexicans are such hard dedicated workers then stay in mexico and built your own mexico lind up throw out those corrupt mexican politicians it wont be easy but it can be done
February 19th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I thought the column/article was about Hillary Clinton visiting the Valley - but as usual immigration-crazy, nativist types have to try to steer the conversation to their immigration obsessions.
Gee, Taxpayer, such strong opinions from someone who can’t put his or her name to those views.
Also, to Jose, the figures you cite are from a right-wing think tank, so that stats cited are suspect since they come from an ideological standpoint. Any stats coming the FAIR, Numbers USA, etc., crowd are nothing more than right-wing propaganda.
Sorry to say for some of you righties, but children born in the United States are Americans, whether their parents are here legally or illegally, and so those children are entitled to all rights and privileges therein. You righty nativists need to get the Constitution changed in order for Americans not to be Americans even when they’re born here.
And maybe, for once, could you people stick to the subject at hand instead of veering off to your prejudicies. I know it’s hard to contain yourselves.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Taxpayer, I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but I didn’t make any personal attacks. I made the point, which anti-Mexican immigrant crusaders rarely acknowledge, that there is not real legal alternative for 99.9% of the Mexican laborers who want to come across to work. It is absolutely false that Mexicans have an easier time getting citizenship. Legally, an immigrant can get citizenship through family reunification, marriage, or employment. Employment-based citizenship includes three categories. First, immigrants with extraordinary ability in sciences, arts, education, business or athletics demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim (think Yao Ming/an executive with Shell or BP, a preeminent research scientist). Second, members of the professions holding advanced degrees and immigrants with exception ability in the scienes, arts or business. This second class of employment-based citizenship requires a labor certificate from the Department of Labor ensuring that there is a shortage of US citizens in that profession such that the job cannot be done by an American. The last type of emplyment-based citzenship is for skilled laborers for which U.S. workers are not available and also requires a certificate that there are no USC’s who have applied for the job. However, there is a quota of 10,000 per year for the third class of employment-based citizenship.
So, the only way that getting citizenship ship is “easier” for a Mexican national than someone from Europe is because the mothers can swin the river and give birth on U.S. soil. That doesn’t really sound like a benefit to me. And, in fact, immigrants from China, India, Mexico and the Phillipines are subject to per-country quotas for family reunification (which requires a direct relative that is a US citizen) and skilled laborers that immigrants from Europe are not subject to. So, in fact, it is almost certainly more difficult for a Mexican national to get citizenship or lawful permanent residency than a European or Australian.
The problem is that our laws don’t give Mexican immigrants any viable legal options, and their economy will continue to give them incentive to come illegally. We can’t fix the Mexican economy. But, we CAN regulate immigration from Mexico by creating legal methods for laborers to get across and work over here in industries where their labor is sorely needed. And, if we did this, we’d be a lot safer and have more tax revenue.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:41 am
All excellent points, Valley Newcomer, thanks for the post.
Most Americans, I believe, would agree to the following on immigration:
1. Continue to recruit, hire, train, and retain more Border Patrol agents, Customs officers and other federal law enforcement officers to help patrol and protect our borders.
2. Use the best technology available to assist in protecting our borders and use physical obstructions such as fencing and other barriers only in concentrated areas where it makes sense and will be effective.
3. Improve tracking/monitoring of those immigrants who enter the country legally via visas, but then overstay their visas and become illegal immigrants. Nearly 50 percent of all illegal immigrants here are people who overstayed their visas, which is rarely mentioned by righties.
4. Increase legal immigration by increasing the number of slots in the different employment categories, so more folks can come in legally to work in sectors of our U.S. economy where their labor and services is needed.
In that way, BP agents can spend more time chasing bad guys and not hotel cleaning ladies and sheetrockers.
5. Provide a lengthy and conditioned path to citizenship/legal status for immigrants here illegally, if they qualify.