[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.
Ethics Alarms 
Yes, Maria Arararas is a Telemundo hack whose question ignore the fact that Puetro Ricas can freely travel and live in the US, since Puerto Rico is a US Commonwealth. I’m am surprised that Cruz didn’t pointedly remind her that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigrants. I guess he was worried about losing the Mexican-American vote in Texas to Trump. I don’t think his hesitation in responding to this misleading question disqualifies him.
Well, as you know, I do. This lie is toxic, it persists, and if nobody has the courage to confront it, we will end up with uncontrolled illegals, forever. It’s too big an issue to wimp out on on national TV. It’s not just a misleading question.
Anyone who supports illegal immigration is a traitor to my country, the United States of America.
In essence, that’s my view too. Yet no Presidential candidate had the integrity to say that they didn’t “get it.” It made me nauseous, frankly. I can’t sleep.
Michael, I suspect many people with Hispanic surnames feel as you do. But I seriously doubt if there is any polling to substantiate that fact it will ever see the light of day. Which is unfortunate.
Found this: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/poll-heres-what-hispanics-think-about-illegal-immigration
Given that both candidates on the other side are all for open borders, I assume that disqualifies them too?
It’s safe at this point to recognize that Jack has assessed all the candidates from all sides at disqualified. You can now play the game of ranking who is most disqualified and why they are disqualified: be it from horrifying ethics like Hillary or Trump, et al, or from not having what it takes to lead, like Hillary or Teump, et al, or from having a horrifyingly incompetent or destructive worldview, like Hillary or Trump, et al.
Both of them have so many other reasons to disqualify them it doesn’t matter, but of course.
Amen and amen.
You know, I actually would have approved somewhat of someone who stated your adverse suggestion… if delivered sufficiently sarcastically.
“if Hispanic Americans hear that the GOP doesn’t want them in the United States they won’t pay attention to our next sentence.”
Trump: “Yeah, no… Hispanic Americans are great, I love Hispanic Americans, I have Hispanic American friends. These losers coming from Mexico, they aren’t Hispanic Americans, they’re illegals, and they’re losers. That’s why I wanna build a wall. And Mexico will pay for it. We’re gonna win again.”
You know… typing that out reminded me of Charlie Sheen, tiger blood, and warlocks. “Winning!” I wonder if Trumps problem is just a whole lot of cocaine?
That’s as plausible an explanation as anything else.
“Ben Carson, who has the relevance of a streaker at a baseball game.”
Not that I disagree, because I don’t… but why are you letting Kasich off?
A man’s mental self defense mechanisms can only handle so much. Certain inhibitions kick in like ignoring further depressing situations lest go catatonic.
Kasich at least had a reason to run in the first place, relevant experience, and is an established political leader as well as a successful governor, the last one standing. (Senators historically make lousy Presidents—Obama, JFK—and usually don’t even get nominated.) He should have dropped out long ago. I admire Scott Walker for accepting reality so quickly and dropping out when he did. Kasich isn’t competing, and is just running interference for Trump now. More on this soon…
Reagan.
That wasn’t meant to be posted. I was cutting and pasting into the wrong window.
Jack,
I hope you don’t mind but I’m quite likely going to be writing in the name Jack Marshall as my vote for President this year; yep, I’m serious.
I’m tanned, rested, and ready to go!
I can think of a number of people who could easily get my vote; Jack’s name is near the top of the list. Sadly, none of the other candidates are even ON the list. Have I mentioned lately that we are doomed?
If only he’d run…