GOP Senator Mel Martinez authored a decent compromise bill to resolve the growing illegal-immigration problem in the United States. He broke up the group of 11 million illegals into three classes, depending on the amount of time that they were in the country. Those in the United States for two or fewer years would be expelled. Those in the country for two to five years would get in line and pay a fine. Those who had been in the country for longer than five years would be granted full citizenship following payment of a fine.
I believe that rampant illegal (and I'm not afraid to use the word "illegal" because it is apt and accurate) immigration is not good for the country, not for the born and naturalized citizenry, nor good for the illegal immigrant, many of whom are looking for the rule of law. I believe that the rising number of conservative Hispanics (New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio) in the country are making the growing case for Hispanics, whether born or naturalized in this country, who are tired of unchecked illegal immigration. Please share your thoughts on this trend.
Mira, muy chingón in saying "illegal"! And I bet you some of your best friends are "Hispanics" and you took four years of English in high school, too! First off, Mel Martinez's proposal is tantamount to apartheid and is as laughable a ploy to get Mexis to vote Republican as a recent proposal by the Lincoln Club of Orange County, one of the most powerful fund-raising groups in the United States, to "solve" our nation's illegal-immigrant "problem" by letting them become permanent residents, but not allowing them to ever become citizens (that's how Germany treated its Turks, and look at how that turned out). There is no "rise" in conservative "Hispanics" in los Estados Unidos—vendidos have always existed, and as I've argued in this very columna many times, Mexicans are natural-born conservatives (libertarians, really) who don't go with Republicans because of their demonization of Mexican culture. And lastly, ain't it hilarious how Susana Martinez is spending thousands of dollars in campaign funds to try and prove her grandparents weren't illegals? Who cares how your abuelitos came into this country, chula—your frente still has a nopal on it! That you're wasting your time and money just to improve your standing with your Republican puppet masters at a time of duress for your state shows how selfish and deluded you truly are. Besides, haven't you heard of Ancestry.com?
My wife is an elementary school teacher. She claims that Mexican children with Anglo first names (such as Brad or Ashley) do better in school and on standardized exams than Mexican children with, well, Mexican first names (such as Fernando or Lupe). Your thoughts, please.
White Guy Who is Married to a Mexican-American
"The Relationship Between First Names and Teacher Expectations for Achievement Motivation," co-authored by Tracy N. Anderson-Clark, Raymond J. Green, and Tracy B. Henley for the March 2008 issue of the Journal of Language and Social Psychology, found that teachers in a test case conducted in Dallas elementary schools consistently gave lower achievement scores to a sample student with a Latino first name (Xavier) than a gabacho one (Ethan) when all other factors were equal. But rather than put the blame squarely on teacher bigotry, the researchers targeted the names themselves. "Although names can represent family, culture, heritage, religion, and parents' hopes and dreams," the researchers concluded, "parents should understand that hopes and dreams can also be compromised by the power of a name." ¡Pinche pendejos! Parents: Proudly name your kiddies Xochitl, Tenorio, and Guadalupe. Also? The Mexican knows more than a few wab Brads and Ashleys who are as dumb as Susana Martinez.