[I will probably do an overview of the entire debate, but this has been straining my skull for hours now, and I have to get it down or die.]
Telmundo open-borders advocate and activist-journalist Maria Celeste Arraras asked this offensive question to tonight’s Republican contenders—well, four contenders and Ben Carson, who has the relevance of a streaker at a baseball game:
After the last presidential election the Republican party realized that in order to win the presidency it needed the support of Latinos. Guidelines as to how to accomplish that were spelled out in an autopsy report that concluded, and I’m going to quote it, “if Hispanic Americans hear that the GOP doesn’t want them in the United States they won’t pay attention to our next sentence.”
So, do you think that your fellow Republican candidates get it?
The question is misleading, assumes an answer, is based on an unethical premise, and is the worst sort of “when did you stop beating your wife?”hackery. It required a rebuke, and a firm rebuttal. Everyone ducked it. Where was Ted Cruz’s quick and precise rhetoric to call the moderator on an outrageous assumption? Where was Donald Trump, who supposedly owns this issue? Where was Rubio, who desperately needed a chance to clarify his muddy position?
Get what, Maria? First of all, are you saying that all Latinos are illegal? Your question, as usual among pro-open borders advocates, eliminates the key distinction between legally immigrating Hispanics and illegals. Nobody has suggested that the nation “doesn’t want” Latinos who came here openly and legally. Nobody. Is the meaning of your question that all Latinos think that there is nothing wrong with letting illegal immigrants enter and stay in this country, and they will punish the party that actually believes in enforcing laws? Is what we are suppose to “get” is that Hispanic voters as a bloc demand that the U.S. abandon the rule of law, continue to allow illegal immigrants to come here without consequences, and accept that “immigration reform” means “open borders,” or else? Is that the way it is?
The Republican Party was foolish to phrase the issue that way, and Arraras was engaging in activism rather than journalism by challenging the field to deny that the lose-lose choice of the party is either to let any dissatisfied Mexican to enter the country at will, or be defeated because of revenge by a determined bloc of unAmerican citizens and voting non-citizens. Yet not a single candidate on that stage had the wit, guts or integrity to answer…
No, Maria, I don’t get it at all, and the premise of your question is offensive and false. Of course we want Latinos who are here as legal citizens or future citizens, like we want and welcome all immigrants who come here to live and work and raise families, obey our laws and become part of our nation’s culture. We don’t want lawbreakers, including those who have contempt for our borders and laws, and neither should Hispanic-Americans, because this is their country too, and allowing illegal immigration is bad for the United States.
Now, we can’t as a practical matter deport millions of illegal residents already here, so we have to find some other solution, but do we want lawbreakers and illegal immigrants, Latino or any other nationality? No, of course not, because if we want them, and have policies that attract them, then we’ll have more lawbreakers and no sovereignty. And I resent the efforts by you, and the liberal media, and cynical Democrats seeking votes at the expense of our economy and integrity of the nation, to intentionally confound legal immigrants, who come here in the great tradition of this nation, and illegal immigrants, who defy our laws.
Both your question and the report it was based on insults American citizens of Latino heritage, because they presumes that American Latinos don’t believe in the rule of law and American sovereignty as much as any other citizen. I think they do. I know they do, and shame on you for implying otherwise.
It is not as if the adverse—“Yes, Maria, we do get it now: the only way Republicans can win is to join Democrats in being complicit in the destruction of U.S. sovereignty and culture by allowing poor immigrants, including criminals and possible terrorists, to endlessly stream over our borders knowing that there will be no adverse consequences, and moreover, that we want them to stay”—is an arguable or rational alternative.
This needed to be said, and I would expect, indeed require, that anyone qualified to be President to be capable of saying it on the spot. Their failure was incompetent, cowardly, and pathetic.
None of the four–and poor Ben, of course— is fit to be President, or even run for President.