Democrats Decide to Go for Hispanic Votes Over Environmentalist Votes?

[Ali G. 37]

Democrats Decide to Go for Hispanic Votes Over Environmentalist Votes?

4/23/10 at 6:05 PM

Photo: David McNew/Getty Images

Now that financial reform is on the way to being wrapped up, probably, what's the next big item on President Obama's and the Democrats' to-do list? Good question. It was supposed to be the climate-change bill that Democrats John Kerry, Independent Joe Lieberman, and Republican Lindsay Graham are set to unveil on Monday. But now it seems as if immigration reform could get pushed to the head of the schedule, and climate change may not be taken up at all this year, because afterward, the Democrats have to confirm a Supreme Court nominee and pretend they're focusing on jobs, even though they're obviously doing other things as well. It's not really a matter of "What's the more pressing problem — illegal immigration or global warming?" as it is "Which is the more pivotal voting bloc — Hispanics or environmentalists?" Especially with the uproar over a new, controversial law in Arizona, the answer

--------------

Good point.

It's also amazing to me that Dems are totally ignoring the negative impact high immigration has on the environment.

[Ali G. 37]

This is an interesting game as the Dems assume they have played off Repubs over the Arizona laws and won all the Hispanic vote. Whereas, the repubs will have played off the dems and proven they care more about wining votes, at the expense of trampling over the environment (America) or listening to the concerns of Americans.

So what is more important to a party? The Hispanic vote or the American vote.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Ali G.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

of course they are going after the amnesty votes. the environment can't vote.

[Ali G. 37]

of course they are going after the amnesty votes. the environment can't vote.

If that is true, Repubs need to milk this opportunity. Selling out your country for a vote is unacceptable.

High immigration and caring for the environment are two polar opposite concepts.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Ali G.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

If that is true, Repubs need to milk this opportunity. Selling out your country for a vote is unacceptable.

High immigration and caring for the environment are two polar opposite concepts.

agreed on both points.

[Dan J 277]

It's also amazing to me that Dems are totally ignoring the negative impact high immigration has on the environment.

Prove it.

The only thing you can prove is that the environmental impact has been shifted, you cannot prove that illegal immigration creates any new environmental impact. Walls certain do have an environmental impact.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

of course they are going after the amnesty votes. the environment can't vote.

Using that logic, you could also say that environmentalists vote, but illegal immigrants do not (legally, anyway), so it would make more sense to go after the climate change bill.

I'm not sure what the Dem's are thinking here. Both environmentalists and Hispanics are already pretty strongly in their camp. Unless the Dem's are considering some sort of fast track path to US citizenship for illegals, I don't see how "immigration reform" is going to net them a significant number of new votes or voters by November. I also don't see a significant number of Hispanics voting for Republicans if they don't pass an immigration bill.

The groups they should really be worried about are the moderates within their own party, and the independents. Those are the groups that swung a little to the right in 2004 and re-elected Bush. They are also the groups that swung a little to the left in 2008 and elected Obama. They are the ones that have the ability to change the course of an election. Right now, those groups are a lot more concerned about the economy, government spending, and taxes. Unless they see a strong effort by congress in these areas, these groups are likely to just vote against any incumbent in November.

[Ali G. 37]

Prove it.

The only thing you can prove is that the environmental impact has been shifted, you cannot prove that illegal immigration creates any new environmental impact. Walls certain do have an environmental impact.

Are you for real? I am not even going to waste my time finding one of many countless studies analyzing overpopulation and its negative effect on the environment. Find me one country with a high living standard and a negligible impact on the environment, that has more than 35 million people. Granted the US is a large country but that does not mean it should become a China or Mexico.

Here is real irony. Australia is looking at slowing down immigration due to increasing destruction of the environment because of this growth. Yes, the libs in a country of 22 million are worried about the environmental impact. Whereas, you guys here clearly demonstrate that the environment takes a back burner to BS ideology. I guess our libs are smarter and not biased or blinded by ideology.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Ali G.

[Ali G. 37]

Using that logic, you could also say that environmentalists vote, but illegal immigrants do not (legally, anyway), so it would make more sense to go after the climate change bill.

I'm not sure what the Dem's are thinking here.

It makes a lot of sense, lets rush to get them citizenship and add an additional 12 million votes for them. Yet in the process, ####### on everyone on this forum. Any attempts to discuss or analyze the impact usually result in country of immigrants, Ellis Island, an attempt to confuse legal with illegal or you simply hate brown people rhetoric. Never ever a legitimate discussion.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Ali G.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

Using that logic, you could also say that environmentalists vote, but illegal immigrants do not (legally, anyway), so it would make more sense to go after the climate change bill.

I'm not sure what the Dem's are thinking here. Both environmentalists and Hispanics are already pretty strongly in their camp. Unless the Dem's are considering some sort of fast track path to US citizenship for illegals, I don't see how "immigration reform" is going to net them a significant number of new votes or voters by November. I also don't see a significant number of Hispanics voting for Republicans if they don't pass an immigration bill.

The groups they should really be worried about are the moderates within their own party, and the independents. Those are the groups that swung a little to the right in 2004 and re-elected Bush. They are also the groups that swung a little to the left in 2008 and elected Obama. They are the ones that have the ability to change the course of an election. Right now, those groups are a lot more concerned about the economy, government spending, and taxes. Unless they see a strong effort by congress in these areas, these groups are likely to just vote against any incumbent in November.

environmentalists can't muster near as many votes as the amnesty crowd.

[Pooky 3,347]

environmentalists can't muster near as many votes as the amnesty crowd.

No argument there.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

It makes a lot of sense, lets rush to get them citizenship and add an additional 12 million votes for them. Yet in the process, ####### on everyone on this forum. Any attempts to discuss or analyze the impact usually result in country of immigrants, Ellis Island, an attempt to confuse legal with illegal or you simply hate brown people rhetoric. Never ever a legitimate discussion.

Understood, but the logic the news pundits seem to be pushing is that the Dem's are chasing immigration reform first because it will help them control the blood letting this November. As I said, unless they're thinking about some blindingly fast amnesty system that will make US citizens out of illegal aliens before November, I don't see how this is going to pick up a significant number of votes. It's a safe bet that Hispanics are going to vote Democrat in November, as they've always done. If they don't get immigration reform before then, I don't see them crossing the line and voting for Republicans out of protest. The whole thing seems like preaching to the choir.

Where the logic really seems to fall apart is with the centrists. Neither of these issues are top priorities for the moderates in either party or the independents, but it is those people who have the power to make a major shift in the outcome of an election. If the Dem's are looking for maximum benefit in November, you'd think they'd be sucking up to the group that has a chance of changing the game, and not trying to appease disgruntled party loyalists who are going to vote for them regardless. Trying to make voters out of illegal aliens is more of a long term goal that won't help them much this election cycle. Either the Democratic leadership is way off the mark here, or the pundits have completely missed the motivation for pursuing this now. Personally, I'm baffled.

[Dan J 277]

Are you for real? I am not even going to waste my time finding one of many countless studies analyzing overpopulation and its negative effect on the environment. Find me one country with a high living standard and a negligible impact on the environment, that has more than 35 million people. Granted the US is a large country but that does not mean it should become a China or Mexico.

Here is real irony. Australia is looking at slowing down immigration due to increasing destruction of the environment because of this growth. Yes, the libs in a country of 22 million are worried about the environmental impact. Whereas, you guys here clearly demonstrate that the environment takes a back burner to BS ideology. I guess our libs are smarter and not biased or blinded by ideology.

Dude, can you actually stay on topic? You said that illegal immigration creates negative environmental effects. When I asked you to prove that, you went onto how overpopulation has negative environmental effects, but that is not what I asked you to prove.

Again, prove how illegal immigration, not overpopulation has creates negative environmental effects that don't already exist because a person is alive and consuming resources.

[Ali G. 37]

Dude, can you actually stay on topic? You said that illegal immigration creates negative environmental effects. When I asked you to prove that, you went onto how overpopulation has negative environmental effects, but that is not what I asked you to prove.

Again, prove how illegal immigration, not overpopulation has creates negative environmental effects that don't already exist because a person is alive and consuming resources.

Nice try to deflect. Immigration as a whole has a huge impact on the environment. Difference is that we can control legal immigration and ensure sustainability. When it comes to illegal aliens, over 20 million have come here as they please. Where do you think these guys will live? In outer space.

So when one party pretends to be all about the environment and then turns around and totally ignores something that has a massive impact on it, I like to call out the bullshit and hypocrisy. Where do you think this extra power generation for 20,000,000 comes from? How much more wilderness do we have to demolish to make more room for grazing and farms? How many more homes do we have to build? How many cities have to be expanded? Require further travel and longer commute times; resulting in the use of more fossil fuels.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Ali G.

[Dan J 277]

Nice try to deflect. Immigration as a whole has a huge impact on the environment. Difference is that we can control legal immigration and ensure sustainability. When it comes to illegal aliens, over 20 million have come here as they please. Where do you think these guys will live? In outer space.

So when one party pretends to be all about the environment and then turns around and totally ignores something that has a massive impact on it, I like to call out the bullshit and hypocrisy. Where do you think this extra power generation for 20,000,000 comes from? How much more wilderness do we have to demolish to make more room for grazing and farms? How many more homes do we have to build? How many cities have to be expanded? Require further travel and longer commute times; resulting in the use of more fossil fuels.

Again, prove your original point.

Every person has an environmental impact. Your life had an environmental impact in Australia, by moving here, you have shifted your environmental impact to the US. You probably haven't really increased or decreased your overall environmental impact, you just shifted the places that it might affect.

So again, how does immigration increase a persons environmental impact, more than what they have already been doing in their home country.