I believe gun control can take political capital away from fixing the broken immigration system, too, if Mexican-Americans do not have a strong grassroots political movement, and if Mexican-American politicians do not step up to the plate. 

Gone are the days for Latinos to hold up a victim card because IMMIGRATION IS A FEDERAL ISSUE.  Obama has the power to eliminate the “Arpaios” and the racial profiling goon squads in his 2nd term now.  This is exactly

Ranking by Population — Pew

why I voted for Obama in 2012 because I know he doesn’t have to worry about getting re-elected.  This is a hot button issue and again … the immigration issue is a federal one under the Supremacy Clause of our United States Constitution.  Be reminded that both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush waited til they were re-elected into their 2nd term before addressing immigration.  Everyone knows that a 2nd term President no longer has to worry about being re-elected, therefore, the Obama administration has clout — particularly when the Democratic Party still holds the majority seats in the Senate.

More importantly, everyone knows how women and Mexican-American / Latinos helped Democrats maintain their power on November 6, 2012.  Women and Latinos made a resounding voting statement in 2012 and Democrats cannot afford to lose that momentum.

Remember when Congressman Luis Gutierrez threatened Latinos would stay home and not vote in 2012 because Obama didn’t pass immigration reform within his 1st term?  (I really like Gutierrez — I really do, but he is Puerto Rican and he needs to be careful with painting with a broad brush especially since Mexican-Americans have been working hard on getting out the vote.  Several did not think the “don’t vote” message was productive).  Mexicanos must get out the vote because that is the only way they can show Washington D.C. that we are paying attention and it is a way to flex our political muscle.

That said, it was interesting for me to see how Nakaruma quoted Cuban-Republican Sen. Marco Rubio.  Doesn’t he know Cubans only make up 3% of the entire Latino population?  More importantly, doesn’t Nakaruma know that Rubio supported the controversial SB 1070 and did not support the DREAM Act when we needed it the most?  The person to seek a quote from is Sen. Robert Menendez (also Cuban-American) who has taken the initiative to put an immigration reform bill on the floor.

Who are the ones mostly getting deported?  It’s isn’t the Cubans — it is the Mexicans who were deported in record numbers, therefore, it makes sense to talk to more Mexican-American leaders who are feeling the pain the most because they are the ones who have witnessed their extended families forced apart and deported.

Where are the quotes of Mexican-American Representatives as it relates to where most of the population is at in the southwestern part of the United States?  Raul Grijalva, Ed Pastor, Toney Anaya, Xavier Becerra, Loretta Sanchez, Linda Sánchez, and so forth? Had the Democratic Mexican-American woman and candidate via Amanda Aguirre been elected this past year, we would have seen her take the bull by the horns on this issue.

Make no mistake, we are now living in the Information Age where keeping track of the Mexican-American politician(s) is easier with regard to their voting records and the initiatives they have taken at the Hill.  I am a mere writer who has no political power — and the ones who have the power are those elected officials who have been elected to push policies that will fix broken things at the Hill. Again, Arpaio’s racial profile regime can end when Congress fixes the clearly broken system.

It is critical for the Mexican-American voters to keep track of their Mexican-American representatives (particularly in the southwestern part of the United States where Mexicans dominate in population growth).  Where is the strong Mexican-American congressional politician at  to take the lead on immigration since the  immigration issue is a federal issue under the Supremacy Clause?  We all know the Supreme Court reinforced the Supremacy Clause issue during the summer of 2012 when most of SB1070 was shredded and gutted. Chicanos must work harder and be more assertive.  It is a good idea for the DREAM Act students to assert themselves because the political game is all about the ante up while raising the call.  While the DREAMers ante up via protests, Mexican-American and/or Latinos who agree with reasonable immigration ought to find what both sides can agree on and build from there.  Note:  Mexican-Americans and Chicanos will more than likely not be for building a class of people who are paying into the federal tax reserve system without proper representation.

Can we address both gun control on automatic / assault-type of weapons and fixing the broken immigration system?

I believe we can do both.

Nonetheless, I am curious what readers think and believe this poll is necessary to ascertain intelligence.

Inauguration Day is coming up, and we should take a proactive position on policies instead of a reactionary one.

In the meantime … do pray for the safety of our United States President.  These are two tough issues, and I’m concerned about the volatility of both the gun and immigration issue under the Obama administration.    Do you know how many racists in Arizona love their automatic and assault rifle weaponry?  Two examples from Arizona I have are J.T. Ready and Shawna Forde that will point to my concern with regard to how wacko racists with guns can be.

In the meantime, please take the poll below.  I voted “no” because I think we can address both issues in a productive and reasonable manner.

By David Leopold

Has Hell frozen over?

Why else would the anti-immigration fringe be toying with the heretical notion of “considering” some form of “amnesty” in a future immigration reform package?

In a piece published recently in the National Review, Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a restrictionist group, wrote:

I’ve long thought that, once real enforcement measures are in place (and functioning, and funded, and survived the ACLU’s legal jihad against any and all enforcement tools), after a few years of shrinkage in the illegal population, considering amnesty for some of those remaining might well be prudent.

The gratuitous slap at the ACLU aside, is Krikorian conceding that some policy other than mass deportation and a virtual end to all immigration might be palatable to the restrictionist fringe?

Hardly.

His comments merely reflect a more nuanced restrictionist rhetoric. This, of course, is not surprising in light of the thrashing that Mitt Romney took in the general election after aligning himself with the anti-immigration extremists and championing their heartless and self-destructive idea of “self-deportation”–a Krikorian favorite.

By suggesting that some form of “amnesty” may be “prudent” for “those that remain here” after years of “real enforcement” Krikorian might just as well have proposed to first deport as many hardworking fathers, mothers, promising youth and children as possible. Then, and only after all the box cars have departed, is he willing to think about treating those few that remain more humanely.

Of course the price he exacts for his newfound benevolence is that America cut off virtually all future immigration, effectively nailing a “Closed For Business” sign on the forehead of Statue of Liberty. He writes:

But the trade-off would not be the conventional one imagined by “comprehensive immigration reform” (amnesty and even more immigration in exchange for insincere enforcement pledges) but rather amnesty in exchange for deep, permanent cuts in future legal immigration.

To concoct this “trade-off,” Krikorian conveniently ignores the facts — like the fact that deportations are at historically high levels and illegal border crossings have been reduced to numbers not seen since the 1970s.

It’s still the same old extremist tune — just more cleverly played.

Why the ruse? Since President Obama was reelected, the national immigration debate has turned sharply away from the positions espoused by Krikorian and his allies. Latino voters rejected Mitt Romney by an astounding 70-plus percent. If Republicans have any hope of attracting them in future elections, they will have to reach out to Latinos on issues that matter to their community. Comprehensive immigration reform is one of them. Like it or not, Republicans are going to have to talk seriously about immigration policy, not just parrot hateful, racially charged nativist talking points.

Krikorian is desperately seeking to be heard in an immigration debate to which he has nothing positive to contribute. His mean-spirited agenda is antithetical to a meaningful national dialogue on immigration. A discussion that will, hopefully, involve bipartisan consideration of serious immigration policy proposals, including visas for highly skilled foreign workers, a well-designated temporary worker program, restoration of due process, and a pathway to earned citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the shadows.

Krikorian’s new message shows that he sees the writing on the wall. His immigration agenda — mass deportation and a virtual halt to all immigration — is not only terrible politics, it’s terrible for America. So, it’s no surprise that as the nation turns to the hard work of fixing its badly broken immigration system, people like Mark Krikorian find themselves stuck in their dark corner groping to find a way to be taken seriously.

The restrictionists should buy winter coats. It’s cold where they’re headed.

It sounds like Romney doesn’t think 47% of the American population isn’t taxed enough.

Now let’s talk about the 47% Romney is basically lambasting. Does this include military soldiers since many of them do not fit into the class he is seeking? Indeed the unintended consequence of Romney’s 47% remark reveals economic hardship reality of our troops, young families & seniors.

Particularly when every American I know pays up the wazoo in taxes albeit gasoline, in some cases food, clothing, liquor, tires, tobacco and the list goes on and on.

Let’s take gasonline taxes for instance.  Did you know Americans pay an average of 48.8 cents per gallon in taxes? Almost 50 cents per gallon, folks.

Below is an interactive map that will give you an idea with regard to all the gas taxes going into the revenue system.

It appears Romney is simply out of touch with the ordinary American and the tax burdens we are already overloaded with.

It doesn’t stop with gasoline taxes in which almost every American depends upon in order to get to and from work.  Look at the alcohol tax revenue, Sales Tax Holidays, Tobacco Tax Revenue, State General Taxes on items such as clothing and household needs, and the tax list can go on and on.

Should Mitt Romney discount the 47% of the American population since every American pays taxes in some way or form?

Does Romney’s elitist views include only a certain class of people and shouldn’t every single American who pays into any type of tax department be treated the same?

After all, at its core, the Boston Tea Party was a conflict over taxation. You may have heard the phrase “taxation without representation,” which developed in this era. Unlike their British brethren, the people living in the 13 colonies did not have direct representatives in the British parliament. Because of that, the colonists had no way to vote for how they would be taxed or who would represent them. And because of this lack of representation, the British government was free to tax the colonists in any way — and for any amount — that it saw fit. With no way to fight taxation and no way to claim their rights, many colonists feared that their property could be taken away through debilitating taxes.

Fact is, Romney’s slam against 47% of the American population seems to be pretty damning and it shows his utter disregard for a much needed “unity” message we are all thirsty for.  It is unfortunate that Romney has shown no concern for the approximate “other half” of Americans.  This is highly unfortunate and Mitt Romney owes Americans an apology.