« Immigrant of the Day: Fang A. Wong (China) | Main | Showdown in Arizona »
December 10, 2007
Reps Debate in Florida (in Spanish!)
The N.Y. Times reports on the Republican Presidential candidate in Florida:
"In front of what will probably be their most pro-immigration audience, Republican candidates toned down their rhetoric but told Spanish-language television viewers in a debate on Sunday that they would take strong measures to close off the country’s borders to illegal immigration.
The candidates were forced into a difficult balancing act by the debate, broadcast on Univision, as they tried to offend neither the Hispanic audience nor the Republican base many of them have tried to appeal to by taking a hard line on illegal immigration. The topic has led to some of the fiercest rhetoric in past debates."
Initially scheduled for September, the debate had to be rescheduled because only Sen. John McCain had agreed to appear on the earlier date. This time, the only candidate who refused to attend was Tom Tancredo, who has made a tough immigration stance the centerpiece of his campaign.
The debate was held on the University of Miami’s Coral Gables campus Sunday evening. Three months after Democratic presidential candidates participated in a first-of-its-kind Spanish-language forum, seven Republican presidential candidates took to the stage, attempting to woo Latina/o voters in a forum broadcast to millions of viewers on Univision’s television, radio, and online platforms. Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Governor Mike Huckabee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, Senator John McCain, Congressman Ron Paul, Governor Mitt Romney, and Senator Fred Thompson debated issues ranging from education and immigration to the Iraq War, health care, and U.S. foreign policy in Latin America. Univision Network news anchors Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas moderated the forum, posing questions in Spanish to the candidates who had earpieces that allowed them to hear simultaneous translations into English. The candidates’ responses were simultaneously translated into Spanish for the broadcast.
KJ
December 10, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e54fb0f9c18834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reps Debate in Florida (in Spanish!):
Comments
Can anyone point me to an article, survey or share a personal observation about the response of the Spanish speaking population to the republican Spanish-language debate in Miami? Was it positive? Negative?
I was not impressed myself. The candidates danced around their tough stance on immigration and made their “no amnesty” plans sound a lot like comprehensive immigration reform. Also, they skirted the questions about whether a US citizen child of an undocumented immigrant should be separated from their parents. Although one candidate (can’t remember who – think Romney) actually used the term/slur “anchor baby.”
On a side note, is frustrating that a mainstream candidate would use the term/slur because the concept of an anchor baby is largely mythical. Under our current laws, you can’t sponsor your parents until you are 21 and then at that point, the waiting period to sponsor parents can be years and in some cases a decade or more. So if you had an anchor baby when you were 20, at the very earliest you would be 41 before you could even begin the process probably 50 or older to actually become a citizen.
Posted by: Richard | Dec 12, 2007 10:58:01 AM
Once more I have to laugh at the stupid argument that somehow our government is responsible for separating birthright children from illegal aliens. Foreigners who come here on work visas have children here all the time, and they take their children to their homelands when their visas expire or when their work is completed. My brother-in-law and his wife came from Korea to work on the construction of a plant, had two children and returned. These people never bring cases to court based upon the argument that they deserve legal residency because of their birthright children. The separation of birthright children from illegal aliens is the decision of the illegal alien.
Richard said: "On a side note, is frustrating that a mainstream candidate would use the term/slur because the concept of an anchor baby is largely mythical. Under our current laws, you can’t sponsor your parents until you are 21 and then at that point, the waiting period to sponsor parents can be years and in some cases a decade or more."
The term anchor babies refers to the act of using a child to gain legal residency status for his parents, a detestible act, to say the very least. I've never heard of a child going through life with term anchor baby on his birth certificate or being derided by his peers as an "anchor baby", so I see no harm in its use. It reflects more on the act of the parent than the child. The exploitation of the birthright citizenship of children to gain legal residency is unethical. Americans not co-opted by the illegal alien advocates failed to give support to Alvira for this very reason. Anyone who would use their child as a tool for their own personal benefit is dispicable. Parents who would threaten to abandon their resposibilities to their children are more interested in their own fate and guilty of extortion by playing on the emotions of the public.
Posted by: Horace | Dec 14, 2007 10:28:52 AM
