Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "hispanic" community does not really exist. They are a political fabrication thats used for the purpose of securing goverment funds and for fake identity politics.
They dont actually have anything in common, so there's no categorical statements you can make about all so called "Latinos".
Take the immigration issue for example, which is widely reported as being a "Latino" issue, but its really not.
Think about it: Why would a PuertoRican care about immigration? They are citizens who can go and come as they please. Immigration has never been an issue for them. Why would a Cuban care about immigration? They dont care either because it does not affect them. All they have to do is make it to the U.S. Theyre only concerned with foreign policy with the Castro Regime.
Immigration is a Mexican issue.
It's useless to even ask questions about "Latinos" because there will be no meaningful answers that apply to all of them. They are dozens of different unrelated nationality groups that are being statistically grouped for political reasons.
Please don't try to explain this to liberals and democrats who thrive on putting people into groups and determining how that group should vote. People of "Latin" American countries are quite diverse as you've stated and many of them don't even like each other, yet democrats continue to try to lump them all together as one entity.
The "hispanic" community does not really exist. They are a political fabrication thats used for the purpose of securing goverment funds and for fake identity politics.
They dont actually have anything in common, so there's no categorical statements you can make about all so called "Latinos".
Take the immigration issue for example, which is widely reported as being a "Latino" issue, but its really not.
Think about it: Why would a PuertoRican care about immigration? They are citizens who can go and come as they please. Immigration has never been an issue for them. Why would a Cuban care about immigration? They dont care either because it does not affect them. All they have to do is make it to the U.S. Theyre only concerned with foreign policy with the Castro Regime.
Immigration is a Mexican issue.
It's useless to even ask questions about "Latinos" because there will be no meaningful answers that apply to all of them. They are dozens of different unrelated nationality groups that are being statistically grouped for political reasons.
You are correct. But the fact remains that all groups that identify as not strictly "white" vote ~70% Democrat overall every time. So the only thing they have in common is not white and voting in a strong block. I believe I know why they do it.
The "hispanic" community does not really exist. They are a political fabrication thats used for the purpose of securing goverment funds and for fake identity politics.
They dont actually have anything in common, so there's no categorical statements you can make about all so called "Latinos".
Take the immigration issue for example, which is widely reported as being a "Latino" issue, but its really not.
Think about it: Why would a PuertoRican care about immigration? They are citizens who can go and come as they please. Immigration has never been an issue for them. Why would a Cuban care about immigration? They dont care either because it does not affect them. All they have to do is make it to the U.S. Theyre only concerned with foreign policy with the Castro Regime.
Immigration is a Mexican issue.
It's useless to even ask questions about "Latinos" because there will be no meaningful answers that apply to all of them. They are dozens of different unrelated nationality groups that are being statistically grouped for political reasons.
I just said this in an earlier post. I figured even a cursory exploration of this "Latino" political phenomena would yield the same conclusion. I just dated Latina women and found out that this Latino thing is just a political myth. They are a diverse group of people all on their own. The only thing that remotely unites them is a language and a vague Iberian-European culture, which even then is very loose.
But Liberals and Democrats cannot function or correctly analyze without these inane boxes they put people into. There is no Latino race. No country in LatAm has a "Latino/Hispanic" racial category. They do not see themselves as "Latino" in the sense of a race much less a connected one.
Most of the issues dubbed "Latino" issues tend to be Mexican, Mexican American or Central American issues.
I mean how can liberals be this blind to the nuances of the people they claim to support? It's almost insulting and condescending the way they pigeonhole people and then expect them to vote a certain way or hold certain views.
You are correct. But the fact remains that all groups that identify as not strictly "white" vote ~70% Democrat overall every time. So the only thing they have in common is not white and voting in a strong block. I believe I know why they do it.
For the longest time, Latinos did identify as white, ethnic white like Jews and Italians or Persians or Armenians. Many still do. I remember growing up in Texas and there being older Mexicans who wouldn't say "white guy" because they felt it was rude and would use the term "Anglo" or "Gringo", which just meant American. They use the term "Guero", which means light skinned but could be used on other Latinos too. It doesn't necessarily mean white Anglo American person.
The younger Latinos say "white guy" and increasingly do not see themselves as white even if they themselves are green eyed and fair skinned. If they do identify as white Hispanic, they're shouted down as being self hating. So there is no room for nuance for Latinos under the Democrats version of "Latino".
Latino's for the longest time until the early 1970's were considered "Caucasian" or white since that is large part of their ancestry. Their language, customs, religion for the most part is European. Then the U.S. government decided they needed to be counted separately in the U.S. census, and created the work "Hispanic" so they could be distinguished as a separate group. The rest is history.
For the longest time, Latinos did identify as white, ethnic white like Jews and Italians or Persians or Armenians. Many still do. I remember growing up in Texas and there being older Mexicans who wouldn't say "white guy" because they felt it was rude and would use the term "Anglo" or "Gringo", which just meant American. They use the term "Guero", which means light skinned but could be used on other Latinos too. It doesn't necessarily mean white Anglo American person.
The younger Latinos say "white guy" and increasingly do not see themselves as white even if they themselves are green eyed and fair skinned.
All of that's fine but Latinos are ethnocentric and whether they want to identify as 'white' instead of mixed race or mongoloid and they've voted majority Democrat since records have been kept in 1972.
I certainly agree younger people who are even mostly fully white European whether latino or not tend to be more hostile to whites. It's just not good to be white anymore.
It would be hard to prove but I bet nearly fully European Spanish lean Republican. There is a very strong ethnocentric factor in being a democrat.
All of that's fine but Latinos are ethnocentric and whether they want to identify as 'white' instead of mixed race or mongoloid and they've voted majority Democrat since records have been kept in 1972.
I certainly agree younger people who are even mostly fully white European whether latino or not tend to be more hostile to whites. It's just not good to be white anymore.
It would be hard to prove but I bet nearly fully European Spanish lean Republican. There is a very strong ethnocentric factor in being a democrat.
That might be an interesting point considering that a big block of the GOP Hispanic vote are Cubans who are largely Caucasian and fully see themselves as ethnic white Americans just like Italians.
Latino's for the longest time until the early 1970's were considered "Caucasian" or white since that is large part of their ancestry. Their language, customs, religion for the most part is European. Then the U.S. government decided they needed to be counted separately in the U.S. census, and created the work "Hispanic" so they could be distinguished as a separate group. The rest is history.
That may have come about with the advent of the Chicano movement too. It was always there to an extent but they heavily identified as being other than white. Fundamentally a lot of their politics became the politics of "Latino identity".
Latino's for the longest time until the early 1970's were considered "Caucasian" or white since that is large part of their ancestry. Their language, customs, religion for the most part is European. Then the U.S. government decided they needed to be counted separately in the U.S. census, and created the work "Hispanic" so they could be distinguished as a separate group. The rest is history.
It always depended on how much European Caucasian vs mongoloid ancestry they had and class and assimilation. As far as I can remember they were considered mexican or whatever nationality.
It has a lot to do with class and assimilated provided the Indio ancestry wasn't clearly dominate.
Anglos absorb the smaller French, Dutch and Spanish colonist and others into America over past centuries, but I'd argue people from latin American have a different heritage and genetic pairings.
Can you please provide examples of how Republicans have been against legal immigration?
Through current HISTORY : 2004-2007: You could say that talk radio killed President Bush's attempts at immigration reform. He hoped to appeal to both business owners and Hispanic voters with a comprehensive overhaul, but he was stymied by his own party. Rubio gained his seat in 2010 as a tea party insurgent. But when he tried to craft a comprehensive immigration bill, he suddenly found himself condemned as a traitor by the tea partiers who raised him up in the first place. House GOP’s perspective. the 11 million “illegal aliens” must be expelled. etc etc Why, then, do many House Republicans oppose comprehensive immigration reform, as presented in the Senate bill? It’s because House Republicans aren’t motivated by true conservatism. The Republican Party is 89 percent white, and 97 percent of Republican House districts in the 113th Congress have white majorities. Moreover, 67 House Republicans won seats with the support of the Tea Party.
The Republican Party has scapegoated immigrants for some time, but now immigration has moved to the center of the party's agenda and has become a platform to advance its political fortunes.The real reason why the House GOP refuses to pass the Senate bill: their constituents are anxious, even fearful that immigrants will take over the country. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...ration-reform/
The most recent major immigration reform enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants. "For 20 years our country has done basically nothing to enforce the 1986 legislation against either the employers who hired illegal immigrants or those who crossed our borders illegally to work for them.
That sums it up
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
