How Republican's Can Pass Immigration Reform Now, Here's How

By Stephen A. Nuno

NBC




As President-elect Trump prepares for his term in office, Republicans in Congress have stumbled out of the gate with an ill-advised attempt to gut an independent ethics office that investigates House lawmakers and staff accused of misconduct. But if the GOP is looking for an easy victory that could put the Democrats on their heels, they may look no further than a compromise on immigration reform.

Immigration reform has been difficult, mainly because of one important disagreement between the GOP and the Democrats; what to do with the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. Democrats desire a pathway to citizenship for this population; they have touted the economic and social benefits and it doesn't hurt that new citizens also means new potential voters.

However, Republicans have been opposed to a pathway to citizenship, saying this would reward illegal immigration and sidestepped the legal system, despite the many incentives businesses provide to undocumented labor. Some in the party have also used thinly veiled racially charged arguments against a pathway to citizenship because these immigrants would dilute the social fabric of the country, ie. they may be less likely to assimilate into American culture. And frankly, given the GOP's performance with minority voters, the party knows they have a demographic disadvantage with new Latino and Asian voters that would only be made worse by extending this population with the right to vote.

Immigrants without documentation are faced with daily struggles. It is difficult to work without proper identification. They are susceptible to human and labor rights violations because of their status. Their status is also a source of extreme stress for their families, many of whom are citizens. An undocumented immigrant may be pulled over for a traffic infraction and be taken to a detention facility without any notice to their family which can last weeks or months.

Moreover, many undocumented immigrants were young when they migrated to the United States and had no idea that they were not processed properly until later in their lives. Recall that Senator Ted Cruz, who is married to a corporate banking executive and who has a law degree from Harvard University, did not discover that he was a Canadian citizen until he announced his candidacy for President. Cruz was also the longest serving Solicitor General of Texas who argued nine cases before the Supreme Court.

However, a key compromise exists between the two parties that is both acceptable to the majority of voters in the country and would humanely solve the immigration issue. Perhaps as important, immigration reform would be beneficial to the economy and to Donald Trump's investment portfolio.

Marco Rubio floated an immigration reform plan that addressed the most important issues outlined above in 2012; a plan that granted undocumented immigrants a pathway to legalization without a special pathway to citizenship. His proposal became the basis for a compromise under the "Gang of Eight" proposal the following year, which died when an upswell of dissent rose from the Republican grassroots. But while Rubio's plan was also cast as unacceptable to Democrats because it did not provide an explicit path to citizenship, President Obama was praised for implementing a temporary reprieve program for Dreamers, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which was essentially the same as legalization without a special path to citizenship.

For undocumented immigrants, the economy, and Donald Trump, the benefits are immediate.

"Increasing immigration is a guaranteed way to boost economic growth. Immigrants boost the supply and the demand side of the economy," says economist Alex Nowrasteh with the conservative Cato Institute. Even for immigrants already here without status, formally integrating them is a boost to economy, says Nowrasteh.

Legalization brings undocumented immigrants out of the shadows so that they may work, take their kids to school, go to church or participate in society without fear of being torn from their families.

Research from the social sciences shows that greater social integration increases immigrants' assimilation into American culture, like speaking English and gaining the education they need to maximize their contribution to the economy. And as Pew Research has shown, many immigrants do not desire to be citizens even if offered.

Legalizing undocumented immigrants who can then freely participate in the economy brings them formally into the community. For Donald Trump, a real estate mogul, the benefits are obvious. Nowrasteh of Cato says, "The smallest estimated effect of immigration on rental prices is that a 1 percent increase in population from immigration increases rents by 1 percent. A huge impact."

The case for immigration reform that includes a path to legalization without an explicit path to citizenship is obvious for all except those who either see immigrants as a threat to cultural purity in the Republican party or those in the Democratic party who see their value only in what they can provide in votes.

But a great majority of voters in the 2016 wanted undocumented immigrants to be offered legal status. Exit polls during the election showed that 70 percent favored legal status, and these data have been consistent for years. Voters are not resistant to legal status, except that the real point of disagreement is over what "legal status" actually means.

Politically, a Republican solution to immigration reform would put Democrats in a difficult spot. Obama enjoyed a majority in Congress in his first term in office and could not get immigration reform through, largely because the GOP was united against it and a few Democrats in red districts defected against the party. Obama had also largely expended all of his political capital on health care reform. But the inability to get immigration reform passed was one of the biggest failures of the Obama administration. The GOP can start by settling an issue that is long overdue.

Challenging D.C.'s Tradition Of Unpaid Government Internships

1995 White House Interns with US Senator Diane Feinstein on her visit to the West Wing.

NPR's Parth Shah wrote a great piece on interns in Washington DC and its hardships of working full-time unpaid internships. My personal experience as a White House intern in 1995 with President Clinton's administration was an experience of a life time. That opportunity still to this day opens doors in my career as a lobbyist.

As a USC student with limited financial means, we had to save money prior to starting our full-time internship program in addition to taking a full load of classes at USC's Washington DC program. It was impossible to get a second job because that meant we would not sleep. So with the limited funds that supported our tuition, books, rent and food...we took advantage of the intern "grapevine".

The "grapevine" was a word of mouth of communicating between interns from the White House to the Capitol Building and every Federal department in between. We would know about events where we controlled the "RSVP" list and add fellow interns in order to further network but more importantly eat and drink for free. This was also during the time of the 1995 Federal shut down, where interns were basically running Washington DC because the budget did not affect us, since we were free labor.

My  parents who immigrated in the late 60's from Colombia came from a humble background and sent money whenever they could to add to my limited savings account to survive in DC. But in all honesty, if it was not for all the hard work, struggles and opportunities offered to me, I would not be the person I am today. We share great memories from meeting the leadership of America of both government and business, to sharing struggles as with fellow my interns (including Monica Lewinsky).


 Written by Parth Shah
  NPR

The Department of Labor has guidelines for companies that want to keep unpaid interns. Essentially, unpaid interns have to be treated like students and shouldn't do the work of paid employees.

Those rules, however, don't apply to government agencies.

"If America runs on Dunkin' Donuts, D.C. runs on unpaid internships," says Carlos Vera, the founder of a campaign called Pay Our Interns. The campaign's guiding principle: how much money your parents make shouldn't keep you from getting work experience.

Vera interned at the White House in 2014.

"For any person that loves politics, it's a dream being at the White House," Vera says. "Once I was on that other side, I realized it's not as glamorous as sometimes you think."

Because of the full-time hours and the high cost of living in Washington, D.C., Vera says, unpaid government internships are out of reach for many people from low-income backgrounds. It's something that hits close to home for Vera.White House interns are expected to work unpaid from at least 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday.

"One thing that the White House required is you had to bring in a suit every day," he said. "And that's something that they don't think about: Suits cost a lot of money. So my dad, my two aunts, and my uncle had to all pitch in money just so I could just buy one suit."

According to Money magazine, interning for the summer in cities like D.C. can cost upwards of $6,000. In a statement to NPR, White House officials said while the internship is unpaid, interns can earn academic credit. Vera says many government agencies offer academic credit as a form of compensation.

"At my university, school credit is [$1,467]," Vera says, referring to the per credit cost at his alma mater, American University. "You're paying to intern for free."

Reynolds Graves interned at the White House in 2011 and says unpaid internships are a rite of passage.

"You cannot put a price on the knowledge you obtain from an unpaid internship in these marble hallways, whether it's Capitol Hill or the White House," he says.

The White House internship was just one of the unpaid internships Graves did during college. He worked part time and dipped into savings to get by.

"Maybe you've got to bus tables after work. You know, everyone else gets off work, you don't get to go hang out," Graves said. "There's no shame in that and I think that would even build more grit."

Graves says interns can also seek out grant funding. That's what Ermolande Jean-Simon did when she was a White House intern. She got a $5,000 stipend from her alma mater, Boston University. But even with that money she still had to rely on family and friends to help her get by.

Vera says there shouldn't be so many obstacles for people from low-income backgrounds looking to do an unpaid government internship."Without that kind of support, I don't think I would have even been able to even do the internship," she said.

"People shouldn't be precluded from starting a career in public service based on their socioeconomic status," he says. "That's so anti-American in many ways."

Vera says his campaign is keeping a close eye on government agencies that don't pay their interns. As new elected officials come in, Pay Our Interns will be pushing to make intern wages a priority.

U.S. Constitution - Cyber Monday 25% Discount Sale Today!

Donald Trump's call for poll watchers brings back fears of 1988 Santa Ana

Donald Trump, in Altoona, Pa., on Aug. 12, told the crowd that he would dispatch supporters to monitor polling places to guard against voter fraud in "certain parts" of Pennsylvania. (Evan Vucci/Associated Press)

By Kurtis Lee
 AUGUST 19, 2016, 10:30 AM

He phone calls to Donald Tanney’s office began shortly after polls opened on that election day nearly three decades ago.

Tanney, then Orange County’s registrar of voters, was told that when residents — mostly Latino — arrived at 20 Santa Ana polling locations on Nov. 8, 1988, they were greeted by uniformed guards holding signs with a message in Spanish and English: "Non­Citizens Can't Vote." The guards, dressed in navy blue attire, had been hired by the campaign of Curt Pringle, a Republican state Assembly candidate from Garden Grove, and the Orange County Republican Party. Their mission? Monitor the polling places to ensure no fraudulent ballots were cast, insisted Pringle and officials from the county GOP.

“It was bad,” Tanney recalled. “People were really upset.” The incident became a blemish for California Republicans, producing allegations of voter intimidation and racism. A lawsuit was filed and a settlement reached.

“I remember thinking, ‘Really?’ This is something you could have easily imagined in other parts of the country,” said Raphael Sonenshein, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State L.A., who back then was teaching political science in Orange County. “This was a clear attempt to intimidate Latinos.”

Now, nearly three decades later, as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump calls for his supporters to volunteer as election observers, concerns of voter intimidation have come to the forefront. At a rally in Pennsylvania last week, Trump used strong racial overtones to allege to his mostly white audience that “certain areas” of the state — such as Philadelphia, where almost half the residents are black — will commit voter fraud to support Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

 Officials with the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania have said they will be on watch Nov. 8 to ensure every eligible voter is able to cast a ballot. Trump’s campaign says it’s simply advocating for an open and honest election.

The incident at the Santa Ana polls came six years after the Republican National Committee began operating under a consent decree, which was handed down by the Supreme Court and prevents the party from engaging in some voter­fraud prevention efforts without court approval. Yet that does not apply to campaigns, which routinely dispatch volunteers to observe activity at polling places.

 But what happened in Santa Ana was far from routine. At a news conference after the incident, Jose Diaz Vargas, a 53­year­old Santa Ana police officer, said he was on his way to vote when he heard that uniformed guards were patrolling the polling areas. He went home but later changed his mind in anger and went back to vote.
"I was very upset," he said back then. "This kind of conduct, I did not expect this to happen in the United States. Maybe in some other countries, but not in the United States. . . . I went back to the voting place, but how many other people didn't go back?"

Pringle bested his Democratic challenger, Rick Thierbach, and went on to become Assembly speaker during his time in Sacramento. He did not respond to interview requests. Thierbach said he sees similarities between then and now.

“Trump is afraid he’s going to lose,” Thierbach, a retired Superior Court judge, said as he reminisced about the race he lost by fewer than 900 votes. “What form those poll observers take will be interesting to see.”

 Some Republicans in the state said the uniformed guards of 1988 came at a time when Californians began to see a demographic shift. Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant and expert on Latino voting trends, said the incident was an “encapsulation of an action that was taken that demonstrated how some people in the party viewed a changing electorate.”

“Demographic change is never easy for any constituency or any group — it never has been,” Madrid said. “When it manifests politically, it becomes extremely charged and very explosive.”


Madrid said the growth of the Latino electorate in California in the late 1980s and early 1990s is what some swing states, like North Carolina and Virginia, are experiencing now.

 The stationing of guards in 1988 came six years before Proposition 187, a ballot measure that sought to deny taxpayer­funded services to those in the country illegally — another sign of unease with a changing electorate. Later it was nullified by the courts, but the message from the GOP — the measure was championed by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson — had been sent.

Prior to Prop. 187, Republicans received one­third or more of the Latino vote in California, according to a study by Latino Decisions, a polling firm. The vote peaked in 1984, with 45% of California Latinos backing Ronald Reagan and dropped to 22% supporting Mitt Romney in 2012.

Trump’s rhetoric this election cycle — he’s called Mexican immigrants “rapists” and drug runners — is not likely to help increase those numbers, say political analysts. Polls in swing states consistently show Clinton outpacing Trump among Latino voters.

“It’s been awhile,” recalled Tanney, “but it was certainly the most memorable moment of my time working on elections in Orange County.”

Now retired, Tanney, a life­long Democrat, was asked if Trump’s calls for election observers in certain states could reignite what occurred at those 20 polling locations in Santa Ana 28 years ago. He sighed and offered no comment.

The sinking fantasy that Trump would defend the Constitution

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks in Portland, Maine, on Thursday. (Sarah Rice/Getty Images)

By George Will


Like shipwrecked mariners clinging to a floating mast, many Republicans rationalize supporting Donald Trump because of “the court.” This two ­word incantation means: Because we care so much for the Constitution, it is supremely important to entrust to Trump the making of Supreme Court nominations. Well.

In a Republican candidates debate, Trump complained that Ted Cruz had criticized Trump’s sister, a federal judge. Trump said: “He’s been criticizing my sister for signing a certain bill. You know who else signed that bill? Justice Samuel Alito, a very conservative member of the Supreme Court, with my sister, signed that bill.” Trump, the supposed savior of the Supreme Court, thinks federal judges sign bills.

The mast clingers say: Well, sure, he knows nothing about U.S. government, including the Constitution, which he vows to defend all the way to “Article XII.” He will, however, choose wise advisers and humbly defer to them. 

This does not quite seem like him, but the mast ­clingers say: Don’t worry, he already has compiled a list of admirable potential nominees, and, stickler that he is for consistency and predictability, he will stick to this script written by strangers. This, too, does not quite seem like Trump, but the mast­clingers say: Don’t worry, he has said enough to reveal what his “instincts” are. Indeed he has.

The court’s two most important decisions in this century are Kelo and Citizens United. Conservatives loathe Kelo; Trump loves it. Conservatives celebrate Citizens United; Trump repeats the strident rhetoric of its liberal detractors. Kelo did radical damage to property rights. 

The Constitution says private property shall not be taken “for public use” without just compensation. Until Kelo, the court had held that “for public use” meant for something used by the general public (e.g., roads, public buildings) or to remove blight.

In Kelo, the court held, 5 ­to­ 4, that the government of New London, Conn., behaved constitutionally when it bulldozed a residential neighborhood for the “public use” of transferring the land to a corporation that would pay more taxes than the neighborhood’s residents paid to the government. 

Trump’s interests as a developer and a big­ government authoritarian converge in his enthusiasm for Kelo. Citizens United said that Americans do not forfeit their free ­speech rights when they band together in corporate form to magnify their political advocacy. 

The court held that the First Amendment protects from government restriction independent (not coordinated with candidates’ campaigns) candidate advocacy by Americans acting collectively through corporations, especially nonprofit advocacy corporations such as the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association. Hillary Clinton favors amending the First Amendment to empower government to regulate the quantity, content and timing of campaign speech about the government’s composition and conduct. 

It would do this by regulating campaign spending, most of which funds the dissemination of speech. The rationale for this, and for the broader liberal objective of replacing private funding with public funding of politics, is the theory that politicians are easily bought and that private contributions breed quid pro quo corruption. Trump loudly voices this proposition. 

The court has said that campaign ­speech regulations can be justified to combat corruption or the appearance thereof. Trump says he has made innumerable contributions to members of both parties because, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.” 

Before he decided to solicit contributors, he said his wealth made him the only candidate impervious to corruption. It is unlikely that he would nominate to the court people who believe that the First Amendment, properly construed, requires the deregulation of political speech. 

The mast­ clingers should remember that Trump’s hostility to First Amendment values is apparent in his desire to “loosen” libel laws, thereby making it easier to sue or intimidate people who criticize people like him. 

Most mast­clingers are properly dismayed by President Obama’s anti-­constitutional use of executive orders to implement policies Congress refuses to enact. Trump promises more executive orders: “I’m going to use them much better, and they’re going to serve a much better purpose than he’s done.” So, mast­clingers straining to justify themselves by invoking “the court” are saying this: Granted, Trump knows nothing about current debates concerning the court’s proper role. 

We will, however, trust that he will suddenly become deferential to others’ preferences about judges. And we will ignore his promise to continue Obama’s authoritarian uses of the executive branch that will further degrade the legislative branch. We will do this because we care so very much for the Constitution. 

Opinion: The Party of Lincoln is Dead, But Don't Just Blame Donald Trump

 

by Stephen A. Nuno - NBC.com

CLEVELAND -- Make no mistake, the party of Lincoln is dead, but don't blame Donald Trump. The real Republican Party signed its death warrant the day it embraced the land of Dixie and the kinds of politics whom the Party of Lincoln spilled vast sums of American blood and treasure to cripple.

A party who sends Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who once came under scrutiny for his checkered racial past, to speak at their convention about his concern over Hispanic and black unemployment can only be seen as a gross attempt at ridicule.

Senator Jeff Sessions Speech at the RNC Convention

 

 

 

 

Party platforms are important statements about the principles that bind political parties together and the recent release of the 2016 GOP solidifies the Republican Party as the most anti-immigrant force in American politics today. The policy proposals are standard Republican fare, but the hostile tone of the platform towards immigrants is reflective of the GOP's descent.

The platform mentions "aliens" seven times, and the section on Immigration and The Rule of Law is a deliberate affront to immigrants. The platform encourages the implementation of a new internet-based verification system, called S.A.V.E., which stands for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements. It supports building a border "wall along the entirety of the southern border", even though experts agree it's a pretty ludicrous - and ridiculously expensive - proposition. But much of this language was already in the Party platform, as was its hostility. For instance, the word "alien" was in the 2012 platform ten times, while it is in the 2016 document seven times. The SAVE program is a retread of 2012, as well.

The entire document reaffirms the anxiety that propelled Donald Trump to the nomination, mentioning a derivative of the word "terror" 25 times (the 2012 Platform used the word 29 times), and comforts whomever supports it by clearly communicating its disdain for immigrants, foreigners, and people generally seen as incapable of becoming American.

This would be a profound disappointment to our Founding Fathers, and frankly, the originators of the Republican Party itself.

Days before the Republican convention and having just celebrated the birth of our Nation on the Fourth of July, it is useful to revisit the principles of our country. Among those ideals of liberty, equality, and justice, this country has struggled to rectify these honorable endeavors with the ugliness of racism and the very real American belief in the supremacy of whiteness. However, to say racism is an American ideal is not a radical statement.

The Constitution chiseled into the soul of this country the notion that black Americans were not equal to whites. The Declaration of Independence began a path to war against King George over, among other things, immigration, but it was white immigration and white citizenship that was of greatest concern to the colonists.

Once the American Revolution was won, among the first acts of Congress was to determine who could become American citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated "That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen…"

The history of American immigration is rife with examples of the country trying to socially engineer whiteness as an ideal. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act sought to erect a great wall between the United States and China as white labor grew increasingly restless with competition from the East. The 1924 Quotas Act (Johnson-Reed Act) sought to turn the clock back on the influx of Eastern European immigrants infecting the country.

During the debates over the passage of the act, Senator Ellison DuRant Smith of South Carolina said, "The time has come when we should shut the door and keep what we have for what we hope our own people to be." What the Senator "hoped" our people should be, was to retain what racial purity the country had lost with the growth of immigration. Only six senators voted against the immigration bill.
D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" had captured the imagination of the country and had capitalized on the anxiety of whites over the inclusion of African Americans into society. President Woodrow Wilson hosted a screening of the film in the White House and worked diligently to resegregate Federal workers. He also justified the presence of the Ku Klux Klan as defenders of their way of life and was illustrative of the racial sentiment of the time.

The Republican Party, however, was borne out of different ideals. Out of the ashes of the struggle between Democrats and Whigs emerged a truly radical party who sought to make good on the promises of the original principles of this country to form a union based on the ideals of liberty, equality, and fairness.

The 1860 party platform fashioned by these radicals sought an expansion of the original Founder's conception of immigration and sought to extend the rights of passage and naturalization to all.
It was the party platform of Lincoln, in 1864, amidst the rubble and anxiety of the Civil War, which stated, "That foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources and increase of power to the nation, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy."

And just four years before, these radicals sought to expand the rights to all migrants, stating that the Republicans were "in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad".

The death of the GOP this country once knew began with the embrace of Southern whites. Decades later, this perversion of the Republican Party can be readily seen throughout.

GOP Senator Steve King Jaw Dropping Statements

 

 

 

Iowa congressman Steve King said on Monday that "this 'old, white people' business does get a little tired," going on to say that no "subgroups" had contributed as much to society. When asked by MSNBC host Chris Hayes if he was referring to white people, he said "western civilization."

No doubt Rep. King forgot that excluding every place that contributed to society but Western Europe would include the birthplace of Jesus and before that the societies that brought us algebra and other mathematics, medicine and astronomy and the Code of Hammurabi, one of the first forms of law.

By the way, a confederate flag sits on the desk of Rep. King, a duly elected representative of a state that once shed blood fighting to preserve the union against the racist framework of the Confederacy. It's an unconscionable reminder of the values and history of this country's original sin.

The Republican Party chose the Southern Strategy as an explicit attempt to attract southern whites to the GOP. Donald Trump has amplified on this, making Latinos and the southwestern border one of his main targets.

The party platform is following Trump, taking the GOP proposed anti-immigrant stance to new heights, though it is not much different from past platforms in its intent. The first modern GOP platform to make "illegal aliens" a part of its cause was in 1972, and it was the party of Nixon who first organized the GOP to establish a policy infrastructure that appealed to whites throughout the South. The statements against "aliens" have not left the party platform since, and the party of Trump has run with it.

The latest platform reaffirms the GOP's call to change the way we count human beings living in our cities and states. "

"We urge our elected representatives to ensure that citizenship, rather than mere residency, be made the basis for the apportionment of representatives among the states," the platform states.

For anyone trying to convince you this is still the "party of Lincoln", recall that his party once sought "full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens", not a new twist on separate but equal where Americans are distinguished from one and other by the government.

The Republican platform takes the worst of America's ideals and, once again, attempts to turn the clock back in a time of high anxiety over the future of what it means to be white in America.

Trump has not emerged out of nowhere. He has emerged from the soul of this country, which Lincoln gave his life to changing. Going into the convention, the platform reinforces this stance. The Republican Party will endure, but make no mistake, it is no longer the Party of Lincoln, and it has not been for a very long time.

With Markedly Fewer Latinos at Republican Convention, Meet 3 Delegates

With Markedly Fewer Latinos at Republican Convention,Meet 3 Delegates

 by Suzanne Gamboa and Victoria DeFrancesco Soto - NBC.com

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Donald Trump will come to the 2016 Republican National Convention to find a shrunken Latino presence, but it will not be absent.

Even though Trump started his campaign bashing Mexicans, promising to build a wall on the border, saying those here illegally "have to go" and calling a U.S.-born federal judge Mexican while questioning the judge's competence, there are Latinos who say Trump is this election's better candidate and that they will cast their vote for him to be the party nominee.

Not all have been Trump supporters throughout. Some are part of a thus far unsuccessful movement to allow delegates to vote for the candidate they choose, an attempt to keep Trump from being the nominee. Others have switched to Trump after their first choice bowed out. Some just want to beat Hillary Clinton.

The convention begins Monday, after a week in which Trump named Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate and scored a victory in preventing a rules change in the Republican platform committee that threatened his nomination.

In marked contrast to 2012, when rising Hispanic Republican stars like New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio rallied the convention delegates and put a more diverse face on the party, what is remarkable about 2016 is the few Latinos who will be there. The initial roster of speakers for this convention only included Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

A group of Latino conservatives who have been harsh and vocal critics of Trump said Monday that they are backing the presumptive GOP nominee to get a Republican administration in the White House after recent terror events and shootings. But many Hispanic elected officials and other prominent Latinos who served in previous administrations are not attending.


The convention also comes after the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal Marist poll shows the presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton ahead of Trump in four of the most diverse presidential battleground states, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.
Nonetheless, there are several Latinos excited to be at the convention and among them those who are enthusiastically supporting Trump. They recognize the diminished Latino presence but are optimistic about their party's chances for the White House and Congress.

Here are summaries of conversations from three of the delegates who talked to NBC News before arriving in Cleveland:

JESSICA FERNANDEZ, Florida delegate

Jessica Fernandez, a Donald Trump delegate from Florida to the 2016 Republican National Conveniton Florida Federation of Young Republicans

Believed to be the youngest delegate from the state of Florida, 31-year-old Jessica Fernandez comes to the convention with a sense of duty.

A Miami-Dade County resident, she is from the one county of Florida's 67 counties that Trump did not win. She had been a Marco Rubio supporter in the primary, but because she represents the state, she feels obligated to the other 66 Florida counties' preference.

"I feel as a Republican delegate I have a duty to fulfill and I want to do the correct thing and that means supporting Trump," Fernandez said. "I want to do the correct thing. I don't want to add to chaos."

The Miami-born daughter of Cuban exiles, Fernandez's parents arrived to the U.S. at a young age in the late '60s and early '70s. Fernandez said her mother told her stories of life under the Castro regime and the attempt to brainwash her as a little girl into loyalty to the communist government.

"They would tell her to put her head down and pray for candy and they would open their eyes and there would be candy. Then they would say pray to the father Fidel (Castro) and pray for candy and there would be candy or a penny," she said. He mother and her mother's family arrived on one of the last Freedom Flights from Cuba.

One of her grandfathers was forced to leave the country after being told that because of his political work, if he did not, he would face a firing squad, she said.

The political activism has remained with Fernandez, who leads the Miami Young Republicans as its president and is the executive director of the Florida Federation of Young Republicans.
She worked on the Mitt Romney campaign and has worked to helped recruit Hispanics to the GOP and build Hispanic leaders in the party.

She said she expects she'll be one of the few Hispanics at the convention, but was looking forward to it nonetheless, despite the opposition among the ranks of delegates to keep Trump from getting the nomination.
"I respect that there are people who say don't want to vote for Trump," she said. "He got the nomination by the process. There will be delegates like myself who are bound to play their part to deliver the vote of their district," she said.

"The alternative is not pleasant. We have someone running on the other side who has been testifying in front of Congress, the FBI, who's been a liar," said Fernandez. "Those problems supersede a comment that would have insulted people."

"When we have someone on the other side who has behaved very questionably," she said, "I'm all Trump."

GUSTAVO PORTELA, Michigan delegate

Gustavo "Gus" Portela, a Donald Trump delegate from Michigan to the 2016 Republican National Convention. Gustavo Portela

While in high school, Gustavo "Gus" Portela would go to his local county party's meetings in Grand Rapids, Mich. He liked George W. Bush and helped in his 2004 re-election campaign by going door-to-door to drum up votes.

He went on to join the College Republicans in Grand Valley State University and today is in Washington, D.C. serving as the executive director of the College Republican National Committee.
Despite the years of history in party politics, Portela, 27, says what he likes about Trump is that he is an outsider.

Trump's success in the primaries is a continuation of elections of outsiders to Congress in previous elections, Portela said.

"I just think that he [Trump] brings a fresh perspective to the process I don't think we've ever had. I don't think we've had a Republican nominee who is an outsider," he said.

Originally from Puerto Rico, Portela and his family moved to the mainland when he was 11 because his parents "essentially were looking for a better life" and to get better educations for their children. Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and those born on the island are American citizens.

In Michigan, his father worked in the Sara Lee factory and his mother, who had been a receptionist in a hair salon in Puerto Rico, was a stay-at-home mom while he was growing up.
Portela said Trump has said "controversial things" but said his statements have been taken out of context by the media, such as Trump's pledges to build a wall, which he said became declarations that Trump wants to deport everyone.

At an Iowa rally in November 2015, Trump said: "I'm tougher on illegal immigration than anybody. That's what I'm saying we have to take people that are here illegally and we have to move them out and you know what, it's going to be done, it's going to be done."

Trump has also said families would have to go but some could return through the legal process. Although he was thought to have backed off from some of that, Trump has not been clear about whether mass deportation was still a policy.

Portela said he sees Trump as wanting to establish law and order in the U.S. "He has said he wants people to come here legally," Portela said.
As far as Trump's comments on the wall, Portela said the policy is not unlike the policies of other politicians who have called for border security.

ADRYANA BOYNE, Texas delegate 

 

Adryana Boyne, a Ted Cruz delegate from Texas to the 2016 Republican National Convention Adryana Boyne

Texas delegate Adryana Boyne agrees with Trump that immigration is a serious problem that has to be addressed head on. And she does not believe that he is a racist or a nativist. However his lack of consideration for the tone of his immigration comments is what gets under her skin.

Boyne, a prominent political voice in the Texas GOP and the Hispanic Republicans of Texas, has had to struggle with Trump's comments. She likes his business sense but has been troubled by his Latino related rhetoric.

Shortly after Trump announced his candidacy, Boyne penned an opinion piece for the TexasGOPVote site where she enumerated in detail her grievances with the soon-to-be Republican candidate.
What most bothered (and still bothers) Boyne is the generalization Trump made out of the gate that Mexico was sending people that "have lots of problems…They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."

For Boyne "the focus on the minority of criminal elements overshadows the tremendous contributions that Mexicans have made."

The Texas delegate's struggle with fully embracing Trump is personal. She was born and raised in the Mexican state of Puebla and became a naturalized American citizen in 1994.

"I am a first-generation immigrant and I take Mr. Trump's comments to heart - he does not differentiate," she said.

Boyne said that if she were further removed from the immigration experience she would likely not be as affected by Trump's comments. But for her, the anti-Mexican rhetoric rings too close to home.
Donald Trump is not Boyne's first choice. She is a Ted Cruz delegate because of his performance in the Texas primaries.

An attempt to stop Trump from securing the nomination by changing rules and allowing delegates to "vote their conscience" failed, so efforts to build more support for Cruz or any other candidate aren't likely.

But Boyne's distaste for Hillary Clinton is so strong that it has moved her toward supporting Trump.
In Cleveland, Boyne will be looking to see a change in tone from Trump, but ultimately, she is committed to helping her party stop Clinton from reaching the White House.

Trumping Up Politics

Trumping Up Politics

Written By: 

Carlos Sepulveda

Business Professor

Universidad Latinoamericana de Ciencias y Technologia (ULACIT)

San Jose, Costa Rica

No need for a crystal ball.  No need for Nostradamus.  Stop the Presses!  Drum roll please….  The next President of the United States will be Donald Trump for one reason only: the entertainment factor.

Since its birth, Hollywood has made America starstruck.  Throughout the years, celebrities have become gods.  From the days of Charlie Chaplin, Clark Gable and James Dean to more contemporary stars, such as Michael Jackson, Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, Beyoncé, and J-Lo, America’s fascination has grown immensely.  It has become a tradition to religiously watch the Oscars, Golden Globes, The Grammys, Fashion Police, and of course mainstream media has capitalized by providing apps with up to the minute information, not to mention the instant impact of Facebook, Twitter, & Instagram.

Now enter Donald Trump, an outsider to the establishment and a multi-billionaire real estate mogul, who became a reality TV show megastar by being blunt and uncaring.   He made the expression “You’re Fired” a popular phrase that previously could have had a negative connotation.  From the beginning, his strategy during debates was ruthless, not only to other candidates, but also to Fox’s presenter, Megyn Kelly.  Even when people called him a fascist, racist, and bully, ratings went through the roof.   When you mix in the fame of a reality TV star and a powerful self-financed political figure that says things that some people are unwilling to say in public, you have the winner of the popular vote.

As shallow as this may sound, Americans want to be entertained.  If people by the millions tune in to Entertainment Tonight and TMZ online to get the “low-down” on Kanye and Taylor Swift’s beef, Miley Cyrus’ antics, Justin Bieber’s new girlfriend, and the latest Kardashian sighting, at the same rate, America will vote for Megastar Trump to hear his latest shocking statements as president for the next 4 years.  It is perfect to make conversation during coffee breaks.  “Did you hear what Trump just said?”  Without a doubt, it is the same “shock jock” phenomenon of the entertainment factor that made Howard Stern an instant success and one of the most popular radio personalities of his time.  

Whether or not, Trump is the best candidate for the job, political incorrectness is a strategy that is effective and he is proving it in the political arena.  Trump is the master of ratings.  The Republican primaries have become a sneak peak of what is to come.  Only time will tell, if my prediction of the entertainment factor holds true.

The Wasted Gift of Donald Trump

The New York Times | OP­ED COLUMNIST


JULY 8, 2015
By Frank Bruni

I keep reading that Donald Trump is wrecking the Republican Party. I keep hearing that he’s a threat to the fortunes of every other Republican presidential candidate, because he sullies the brand and puts them in an impossible position. What bunk. The truth is that he’s an opportunity for them as golden as the namesake nameplates on his phallic towers, if only they would seize it. The brand was plenty sullied before he lent his huff and his hair to the task.

And by giving his Republican rivals a perfect foil, he also gives them a perfect chance to rehabilitate and redeem the party. As it stands now, he’s using them. If they had any guts, they could use him. They could piggyback on the outsize attention that he receives, answering his unhinged tweets and idiotic utterances with something sane and smart, knowing that it, too, would get prominent notice.

They could define themselves in the starkest possible contrast to him,calling him out as the bully and bigot that he is. Then he wouldn’t own the story, because the narrative would be about cooler heads and kinder hearts in the party staring down one of its most needlessly divisive ambassadors and saying: Enough. No more. We’re serious people at the limit of our patience for provocateurs.

There was a hint of this last weekend, when Jeb Bush, whose wife is Mexican­American, lashed out at Trump’s broad­brush comments about Mexican immigrants crossing into America with an agenda of drugs and rape. Bush labeled those remarks “extraordinarily ugly” and “way out of the mainstream” and said that there’s “no tolerance” for them.

But he didn’t exactly volunteer that assessment. It came in response to a reporter’s question, and it came more than two weeks after Trump’s offense. Neither he nor Marco Rubio exhibited any hurry in distancing themselves from Trump, though both of them trumpet their personal biographies as proof that they’re sensitive to Latino immigrants.

On Fox Business on Tuesday, Rubio gave a pathetic master class in cowardly evasion, stammering his way though an interview in which he was asked repeatedly for an opinion about Trump. You would have thought that he was being pressed for malicious gossip about the Easter bunny. He never did manage to upbraid Trump, though he was careful to mention the “legitimate issue” of border security that Trump had raised.

As in 2012, Republicans can’t summon the courage to take on the dark heroes of the party’s lunatic fringe. As in 2012, this could cost them dearly. The Charleston, S.C., church massacre and subsequent debate over the Confederate flag afforded them an ideal moment to talk with passion and poetry about racial healing.

But the leading contenders reacted in fashions either sluggish, terse, muffled or all three. They showed more interest in fleeing the subject than in grabbing profitable hold of it. Trump’s rant about immigrants, which he has since amplified, was another squandered moment. Chris Christie could have made good on his boasts about always telling it like it is and being unconstrained by politesse.

Instead he made clear that he liked Trump and considered him a friend. That soft crunching sound you heard was the supposedly hard­charging New Jersey governor walking on eggshells.

Rand Paul claims the desire and ability to expand the party’s reach to more minorities. So where’s his takedown of Trump? Bush has said that a politician must be willing to lose the party’s nomination in order to win the general election, but that philosophy can’t end with his allegiance to the Common Core. It has to include an unblinking acknowledgment of his party’s craziness whenever and wherever it flares. Trump’s hold on voters stems largely from his lack of any filter and from his directness, traits that they don’t see in establishment candidates.

So his fellow Republicans’ filtered, indirect approach to him just gives him more power. And while he should be irrelevant, he’s becoming ever more relevant, because he’s exposing their timidity and caution. They’re wrong to try to ignore him, because the media won’t do that and because he’s probably going to qualify for the debates. Looking ahead to the first of them, the conservative pundit George Will bought into the notion of Trump as an ineradicable pest who “says something hideously inflammatory, which is all he knows how to say, and then what do the other nine people onstage do?”

Oh, please. That’s hardly an existential crisis. It’s a prompt for an overdue smidgen of valor. Without any hesitation, they tell him that he’s a disgrace. Without any hedging, they tell him that he’s absurd. It’s the truth. And for the Republican Party, it might just be transformative. Thomas L. Friedman is off today.

I invite you to visit my blog, follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/frankbruni and join me on Facebook. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. A version of this op­ed appears in print on July 8, 2015, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: The Wasted Gift of The Donald.

Frank Bruni

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Email

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story

How Does Political Party Affilation Plays To Donald Sterling's Remarks?

Donald Sterling Is a Registered Republican

—By Asawin Suebsaeng and Patrick Caldwell

Does it really matter whether racist LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling is a registered Democrat? Or a Republican? Or a member of the Pirate Party of Russia?

Well, according to multiple conservative media outlets, yes, it does matter. On Sunday, National Review ran a blog post originally titled, "Racist Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Is a Democrat." The post breathlessly noted a handful of contributions he made in the early 1990s to Democratic politicians, including California politician Gray Davis and Sen. Bill Bradley, who had played in the NBA. (Sterling has owned his NBA team since the early 1980s.) The headline has since been changed to "Racist Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Has Only Contributed to Democrats," with an update reading, "his official party affiliation is not known." Still, the Donald-Sterling-Is-a-Democrat meme already took hold within right-wing media:

"Report: Clippers Owner Caught In Racist Rant Is A Democratic Donor" — Fox Nation.

"NBA Sterling is a Democrat..." — Matt Drudge.

"Race Hate Spewing Clippers Owner Is Democratic Donor" — the Daily Caller.
"Media Ignoring Dem Donations of LA Clippers' Owner, Allegedly Caught on Tape in Race-Based Rant" — NewsBusters.
"LA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling is a Racist Democrat" — the Tea Party News Network.

Politico piggy-backed on this flood of Sterling-triggered liberal-shaming with a softer headline: "Donald Sterling made donations to Dems."
Not that Sterling's broader political views or party affiliation have much to do with the controversy over his insanely racist comments, but here's a news flash for those conservatives eager to bring up the topic: He's a Republican.

On Sunday, Michael Hiltzik, a Los Angeles Times columnist, tweeted that local voter records show Sterling to be a registered Republican "since 1998." We followed up on that, and a search of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's website for Sterling's name, date of birth, and address confirmed that he's registered as a Republican:

Screenshot: lavote.net

There's little reason to get excited about Sterling's political affiliation. But if you choose to do so, you ought to get it right.

Jimmys Politico --Exclusive Interview With Ann Coulter!

Ann Coulter with Jaime Rojas

By Jaime Rojas, Jr.
Jimmy's Politico

(This piece is dedicated to NBClatino.com...thank you for the opportunity you gave me. May the decision made by NBC.com be for the better and the positive future of our Latino community!)

Describing her as polarizing is an understatement. Many perceive Ann Coulter to be divisive and at times even anti-Latino. One of the columns she included in her new book, "Never Trust A Liberal Over 3 - Especially a Republican,"  is entitled "America Nears El Tipping Pointo." 

In it, she states: 

"No amount of 'reaching out' to the Hispanic community, effective 'messaging,' or Reagan's 'optimism' is going to turn Mexico's underclass into Republicans."Now, these are precisely the kinds of comments that makes so many Latino voters think there is no way they would ever turn to the Republican party.

But interestingly enough, even Ann Coulter realizes the GOP needs the Latino vote.  "Any election analysis that doesn't deal with the implacable fact of America's changing demographics is bound to be wrong." 



In her new book, she outlines to those Republicans and conservatives who want to listen a basic strategy for GOP success.

This may be surprising, but as  a Republican Latino - and there are many of us out there, but mostly in hiding nowadays - I agree with some of Ann's opinions. 

Don't get crazy with me now - I said "some" of her opinions. When she is not hurling insults, Coulter brings up some good points on how Republicans need to shift gears if they want to win elections.

"Conservatives, we need to adopt the smart things Democrats do, not the stupid ones. We like their persistence, but not their plans to wreck the country. We like the part about winning elections, not the part about jamming execrable policies down the nation's throat."

CLICK HERE to watch VIDEO INTERVIEW!

So how does she propose winning? 

For one, I strongly believe in Ann's comments that the GOP needs to focus on "how to win" elections by picking the strongest Republican candidates that showcase the diversity of the party and not the extreme views of the party. 

She stated that Republicans should stay focused on the party's message  - in order to gain support from Latinos and other minorities in America.

Coulter adds that "part of the problem Republicans always have in reaching out to Latinos and women ... is that they do not stick to the core principles of the Party ... believing in freedom, opportunity and hope in America." 

The GOP can begin preaching these core believes via action by finally putting together a comprehensive immigration policy. What better way to support freedom, opportunity and hope in America!

I asked Ann whether the recent re-election by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, where he received 51 percent of the Latino vote, is a GOP roadmap on how to outreach to Latinos. Coulter says "this is a great indicator for the GOP on how to appeal to the Latino voter. 

 Conservatives should reach out to the Latino community, but they are currently doing it the wrong way."

On immigration, Coulter does not believe "amnesty" - providing a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants - is the way to appeal to Latinos. 

She mentioned that some polls show immigration is not the top priority for some Latino voters, saying that "scratchy toilet paper ranks higher than amnesty for Latinos in America."  

She also adds that "...for the poorest and working class of this country – these are the people that will get hurt most with amnesty being passed in this country."

Coulter has a myopia view of immigration by only looking at amnesty. I am shocked that as a staunch Republican she does not follow in the beliefs of her idol President Reagan who granted "amnesty" to so many in the 80's. 

But again total reform is needed to give America's immigration policy a complete and much needed overhaul:

http://nbclatino.com/2013/11/25/as-president-makes-another-push-for-immigration-reform-poll-finds-majority-support-path-to-citizenship/

But like many Republicans and Americans for that matter forget that amnesty does not equal comprehensive immigration policy. 

Amnesty is only one element of many parts that make up the whole on immigration reform in this country. Let's just follow the strategy the Republican President Ronald Reagan, the great communicator and Californian, who made comprehensive immigration policy happen....almost 30 years ago.

Can the GOP finally be listening or is this just Coulter "marketing" to sell more books? Or maybe I can just tutor Ann in the art of compassion, which is the truly the American way!