Jorge Ramos: Trump has Damaged GOP For Generations with Hispanics

[Torie]

Hey Jorge, "generations" is a long time. Another aspect of this is that even if that will be the case, what percentage of Americans will consider themselves "Hispanic" "generations" from now, and even if they did, that it will have much salience?  You might not like it, but Hispanics do assimilate and intermarry, and all of the rest of that sort of thing you know. You are a bit of drama queen really Jorge. That at least is one thing that you have in common with Trump.

[BoAtlantis]

Kasich or Rubio could potentially do quite well with the Latino vote in 2020.

The problem is that they do not represent the republican base.

  Hispanics are extremly assimilated.

I agree with this to a large extent, however Hispanic culture is inherently in favor of larger government. Stick your head in the sand all you want, despite all the rhetoric about Hispanics being "natural conservatives" this is still not compatible with Anglo conservatism, and I will admit the republican base is justified in their concern over what the demographic deluge will mean for the future of american politics, however they are the ones to blame for shooting themselves in the foot thinking this could be reversed.

Personally I never got all the fuss about Hispanics causing problems for Republicans in the long run, prior to Trump formally branding the GOP as anti-Hispanic/immigrant. Immigrants come here and start at the bottom, so of course they support Democrats, but gradually they will assimilate into middle class suburbia as their status grows and thus have the same interest as the GOP's middle class suburban base. There's no reason it had to be any different than the situation with Irish/Italian immigrants, until the Republicans decided to alienate them for the foreseeable future.

The issue with Hispanic voters is immigration.  It's an issue because a significant number of Hispanics from Mexico and Central America living in the US have a friend or a family member who is illegally here.  The issue is personal in ways that are unique to today's immigrants.

It's also an issue that's not true for all Latinos.  Cuban-Americans are concerned about immigration as well, but we don't send illegal Cuban immigrants back to Cuba; this is 180 degrees from how we deal with Mexican and Central American immigrants.  It's why Cuban-Americans are, still, a Republican constituency.  

The tone of the discussion on the immigration issue has been offensive to many Hispanics, but the substance of the discussion should not be offensive to a Hispanic person who has become an American citizen and who has forsaken loyalty to any other nation.  The GOP is the party of enforcing existing laws, and the party that views amnesty for illegal aliens as an incentive for others to attempt to come here illegally.  The Democratic Party is the party of ignoring existing laws, and of granting amnesty to those who are here illegally.  I don't think that's an inaccurate statement of how the issue breaks down.  If I had family members here illegally, even cousins, I'd probably not want the existing laws to be enforced, but if I'm an American citizen, my expectation would be that our government enforce all of our laws without passion or prejudice.  I don't have respect for "leaders" who are unwilling to enforce existing laws, regardless of what they are.  We are either a nation of the Rule of Law, or we are not, and God help us if we are not.

Your point may be noble but "Enforce our laws" is nothing more than a slogan. Republicans' God, Reagan, gave amnesty and they look the other way. Republicans may cry treason at amnesty but it is the most pragmatic and efficient way to remedy the situation that previous administrations have allowed to let snowball.

Embracing more immigrants is more integral to the concept of free market. They don't need to completely advocate open border but barring criminals, there is no good basis not to unfetter the current immigration laws. Their irrational fears and predilection to overvalue national security has morphed them into regressive anti-capitalists.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Kasich or Rubio could potentially do quite well with the Latino vote in 2020.

The problem is that they do not represent the republican base.

  Hispanics are extremly assimilated.

I agree with this to a large extent, however Hispanic culture is inherently in favor of larger government. Stick your head in the sand all you want, despite all the rhetoric about Hispanics being "natural conservatives" this is still not compatible with Anglo conservatism, and I will admit the republican base is justified in their concern over what the demographic deluge will mean for the future of american politics, however they are the ones to blame for shooting themselves in the foot thinking this could be reversed.

Personally I never got all the fuss about Hispanics causing problems for Republicans in the long run, prior to Trump formally branding the GOP as anti-Hispanic/immigrant. Immigrants come here and start at the bottom, so of course they support Democrats, but gradually they will assimilate into middle class suburbia as their status grows and thus have the same interest as the GOP's middle class suburban base. There's no reason it had to be any different than the situation with Irish/Italian immigrants, until the Republicans decided to alienate them for the foreseeable future.

The issue with Hispanic voters is immigration.  It's an issue because a significant number of Hispanics from Mexico and Central America living in the US have a friend or a family member who is illegally here.  The issue is personal in ways that are unique to today's immigrants.

It's also an issue that's not true for all Latinos.  Cuban-Americans are concerned about immigration as well, but we don't send illegal Cuban immigrants back to Cuba; this is 180 degrees from how we deal with Mexican and Central American immigrants.  It's why Cuban-Americans are, still, a Republican constituency.  

The tone of the discussion on the immigration issue has been offensive to many Hispanics, but the substance of the discussion should not be offensive to a Hispanic person who has become an American citizen and who has forsaken loyalty to any other nation.  The GOP is the party of enforcing existing laws, and the party that views amnesty for illegal aliens as an incentive for others to attempt to come here illegally.  The Democratic Party is the party of ignoring existing laws, and of granting amnesty to those who are here illegally.  I don't think that's an inaccurate statement of how the issue breaks down.  If I had family members here illegally, even cousins, I'd probably not want the existing laws to be enforced, but if I'm an American citizen, my expectation would be that our government enforce all of our laws without passion or prejudice.  I don't have respect for "leaders" who are unwilling to enforce existing laws, regardless of what they are.  We are either a nation of the Rule of Law, or we are not, and God help us if we are not.

Your point may be noble but "Enforce our laws" is nothing more than a slogan. Republicans' God, Reagan, gave amnesty and they look the other way. Republicans may cry treason at amnesty but it is the most pragmatic and efficient way to remedy the situation that previous administrations have allowed to let snowball.

Embracing more immigrants is more integral to the concept of free market. They don't need to completely advocate open border but barring criminals, there is no good basis not to unfetter the current immigration laws. Their irrational fears and predilection to overvalue national security has morphed them into regressive anti-capitalists.

I, personally, would not be opposed to amnesty for those already here, and, in particular, the "Dreamers".  I would certainly not be opposed to granting citizenship to those who came here illegally as children, but who know nothing other than life in America; their actions are not the actions of willful adults. 

But I don't think we need more immigration, period.  I'm a protectionist.  And our immigration policy ought to be conducted in the best interest of American citizens.  If we disappoint the rest of the World on this issue, well, tough turds. 

Living the Rule of Law doesn't just happen.  It's a habit.  Or it's something honored in the breach, and not in the observance.  That's our choice as a nation, and it's a choice that has consequences either way.

[Arbitrage1980]

I'm a conservative Republican who despises Trump, but why do liberals equate anti-illegal immigration to racism? It's really ridiculous. If you came to our country ILLEGALLY, you BROKE the law and must face the consequences. Now, I do think it's unrealistic to deport all 12 million illegal immigrants since most of them are law abiding, work, and have families, and the expansion of the federal government needed to accomplish such a task is hard to imagine. Having said that though, we do need to deport criminal illegals instead of letting them come back in, defund all sanctuary cities, and impose a prison sentence for those who overstay their visas. For those who came here illegally but are law abiding and working, they should pay a back tax penalty and be given a pathway to legal status, NOT citizenship. Hillary's plan of open borders and giving out citizenship like halloween candy, goes against the very notion of a sovereign nation-state with borders. This is just a liberal scheme to add millions of new voters to the Democratic Party.

Trump is a total buffoon and a jackass, but much of his central points on illegal immigration and radical Muslims are actually correct. One can hold those views, be anti-Trump, and not be a racist. Contrary to what liberals say, those are not mutually exclusive positions.

[Arbitrage1980]

Kasich or Rubio could potentially do quite well with the Latino vote in 2020.

The problem is that they do not represent the republican base.

  Hispanics are extremly assimilated.

I agree with this to a large extent, however Hispanic culture is inherently in favor of larger government. Stick your head in the sand all you want, despite all the rhetoric about Hispanics being "natural conservatives" this is still not compatible with Anglo conservatism, and I will admit the republican base is justified in their concern over what the demographic deluge will mean for the future of american politics, however they are the ones to blame for shooting themselves in the foot thinking this could be reversed.

Personally I never got all the fuss about Hispanics causing problems for Republicans in the long run, prior to Trump formally branding the GOP as anti-Hispanic/immigrant. Immigrants come here and start at the bottom, so of course they support Democrats, but gradually they will assimilate into middle class suburbia as their status grows and thus have the same interest as the GOP's middle class suburban base. There's no reason it had to be any different than the situation with Irish/Italian immigrants, until the Republicans decided to alienate them for the foreseeable future.

The issue with Hispanic voters is immigration.  It's an issue because a significant number of Hispanics from Mexico and Central America living in the US have a friend or a family member who is illegally here.  The issue is personal in ways that are unique to today's immigrants.

It's also an issue that's not true for all Latinos.  Cuban-Americans are concerned about immigration as well, but we don't send illegal Cuban immigrants back to Cuba; this is 180 degrees from how we deal with Mexican and Central American immigrants.  It's why Cuban-Americans are, still, a Republican constituency.  

The tone of the discussion on the immigration issue has been offensive to many Hispanics, but the substance of the discussion should not be offensive to a Hispanic person who has become an American citizen and who has forsaken loyalty to any other nation.  The GOP is the party of enforcing existing laws, and the party that views amnesty for illegal aliens as an incentive for others to attempt to come here illegally.  The Democratic Party is the party of ignoring existing laws, and of granting amnesty to those who are here illegally.  I don't think that's an inaccurate statement of how the issue breaks down.  If I had family members here illegally, even cousins, I'd probably not want the existing laws to be enforced, but if I'm an American citizen, my expectation would be that our government enforce all of our laws without passion or prejudice.  I don't have respect for "leaders" who are unwilling to enforce existing laws, regardless of what they are.  We are either a nation of the Rule of Law, or we are not, and God help us if we are not.

Your point may be noble but "Enforce our laws" is nothing more than a slogan. Republicans' God, Reagan, gave amnesty and they look the other way. Republicans may cry treason at amnesty but it is the most pragmatic and efficient way to remedy the situation that previous administrations have allowed to let snowball.

Embracing more immigrants is more integral to the concept of free market. They don't need to completely advocate open border but barring criminals, there is no good basis not to unfetter the current immigration laws. Their irrational fears and predilection to overvalue national security has morphed them into regressive anti-capitalists.

The problem is that illegal immigrants do take more from our social and fiscal resources than what they put into the system. This makes sense since almost all of them are poor unskilled workers. Moreover, their children have to get ESL classes and are a drain on the resources of the local public schools. You then have these same kids get free in-state tuition at universities and benefit from affirmative action, taking spots away from other people. The system has been abused by those who see our country as a free ATM machine.

[Ljube]

Jorge Ramos is the worst Dem hack in the media.

[OneJ]

I'm a conservative Republican who despises Trump, but why do liberals equate anti-illegal immigration to racism? It's really ridiculous. If you came to our country ILLEGALLY, you BROKE the law and must face the consequences. Now, I do think it's unrealistic to deport all 12 million illegal immigrants since most of them are law abiding, work, and have families, and the expansion of the federal government needed to accomplish such a task is hard to imagine. Having said that though, we do need to deport criminal illegals instead of letting them come back in, defund all sanctuary cities, and impose a prison sentence for those who overstay their visas. For those who came here illegally but are law abiding and working, they should pay a back tax penalty and be given a pathway to legal status, NOT citizenship. Hillary's plan of open borders and giving out citizenship like halloween candy, goes against the very notion of a sovereign nation-state with borders. This is just a liberal scheme to add millions of new voters to the Democratic Party.

Trump is a total buffoon and a jackass, but much of his central points on illegal immigration and radical Muslims are actually correct. One can hold those views, be anti-Trump, and not be a racist. Contrary to what liberals say, those are not mutually exclusive positions.

*Yawn

[hopper]

Trump is doing to Latinos what Goldwater did to us Black people. Period.

Its not like Barry Goldwater was a racist and wasn't for civil rights. He was for civil rights for Black People on a state level. I do disagree with Goldwater on that issue and believe civil rights for Black People was a national issue at that time.

[hopper]

I think Rubio/Cruz's presidential aspirations are dead in the water after all that's happened this cycle.  

Why do you think that?

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

I think Rubio/Cruz's presidential aspirations are dead in the water after all that's happened this cycle.  

Why do you think that?

At this point, is the Republican primary electorate really going to get behind a Latino candidate?

[hopper]

If the Democrats nominate a militant atheist a few decades from now things could change.  But unfortunately, the GOP now will be pandering to white Northeastern Democrats for the next few decades to win national elections.

Why would the GOP pander to Northeastern White Democrats for the next few decades?

[hopper]

I think Rubio/Cruz's presidential aspirations are dead in the water after all that's happened this cycle.  

Why do you think that?

At this point, is the Republican primary electorate really going to get behind a Latino candidate?

Why wouldn't the Republicans nominate a Latino candidate?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I think Rubio/Cruz's presidential aspirations are dead in the water after all that's happened this cycle.  

Why do you think that?

At this point, is the Republican primary electorate really going to get behind a Latino candidate?

One reason is that Rubio and Cruz are Cuban, and not Mexican.  Cubans, and Miami anti-Castro Cubans, especially, are a key Republican constituency in Florida; they are trending Democratic somewhat, but they are still Republican. 

They don't identify as "Hispanic" and their issues are different.  They are staunchly anti-Communist, and they don't share the same immigration issues in that we don't deport Cuban immigrants, legal or not, as a rule. 

This is a constituency the GOP would like very much to shore up, and Rubio and Cruz are candidates with some attractiveness.  That's assuming Trump loses and Rubio is re-elected; both are likely, but neither is a sure thing.