Hussein Obama and the Democrats trumpet amnesty for illegal immigrants as if it is the single issue that will deliver the Hispanic vote to the Democrats.   That and Hispanic faces.

November 4 belied that estimate.  GOP candidates (one a white non-Hispanic woman and the other a non-Hispanic black guy) won in two heavily Hispanic districts in eastern NM and western TX.   Neither supported amnesty but their opponents did.

I think Hispanic US citizens are motivated by the same stuff that motivates everyone else.

Jobs are scarce.
Schools suck.
Everything needs a government license.

I think that a GOP/TEA platform that sticks rigorously to economic issues and ignores abortion and same-sex marriage is a winner with Hispanics.

Especially the idea of school choice.

School choice gives Hispanic (and everyone else) a leg up on reforming K-12 education.   GOP/.TEA must emphasize elimination of federal red tape in school choice.

Hispanics – while definitely pro-Democrat – are not as monolithic as the black vote.   Both Bushes – pere et fils – garnered 42-45% of the Hispanic vote.

If Republicans want to shatter the Democratic hold on blacks, they need to become fanatical supports of education vouchers. Given the choice of blacks or union money, the Dems will always choose union money. So make them make that choice.

I whole-heartedly agree on 100% voucherization as the ultimate goal, but even where it is popular, you have to eat that elephant one bite at a time.

Indiana is at the "increase charter schools" phase right now.

Voucherization would be a winner with blacks and Hispanics (stronger families as a rule) and with whites and Asians.   The teachers' unions would go bonkers.   Teachers' unions are strong in some states - notably Ohio.   Kasich had gone right-to-work but the unions fought him off with a referendum.

Across the board, support for voucherization is the winning position.

Quote from: Taxcutter on November 10, 2014, 11:06:58 AM
I whole-heartedly agree on 100% voucherization as the ultimate goal, but even where it is popular, you have to eat that elephant one bite at a time.

Indiana is at the "increase charter schools" phase right now.

Voucherization would be a winner with blacks and Hispanics (stronger families as a rule) and with whites and Asians.   The teachers' unions would go bonkers.   Teachers' unions are strong in some states - notably Ohio.   Kasich had gone right-to-work but the unions fought him off with a referendum.

Across the board, support for voucherization is the winning position.

I agree with you. However, implementation is a real work in progress. By that I mean supporters have to find the right message and method of delivery. To this point there is no proven formula for success. This will be a real battle as the teacher unions will go all out to defeat the introduction of vouchers.

Quote from: Taxcutter on November 10, 2014, 11:06:58 AM
I whole-heartedly agree on 100% voucherization as the ultimate goal, but even where it is popular, you have to eat that elephant one bite at a time.

Indiana is at the "increase charter schools" phase right now.

Voucherization would be a winner with blacks and Hispanics (stronger families as a rule) and with whites and Asians.   The teachers' unions would go bonkers.   Teachers' unions are strong in some states - notably Ohio.   Kasich had gone right-to-work but the unions fought him off with a referendum.

Across the board, support for voucherization is the winning position.

Yeah, here in "The Heart Of It All" we have big-time hard-line union strongholds like Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, and to a lesser extent Dayton, Youngstown, Canton, and Cincinnati. Youse guys have Gary and... that's about it.

Simple enough. Instead of send federal education money to states, they send it directly to the parents of children, redeemable only at an education institution. Works for college, just extend the same formula to K-12 on down. Once parents get used to receiving the federal money, they'll begin demanding they get local money the same way.

Quote from: mdgiles on November 10, 2014, 12:59:22 PM
Simple enough. Instead of send federal education money to states, they send it directly to the parents of children, redeemable only at an education institution. Works for college, just extend the same formula to K-12 on down. Once parents get used to receiving the federal money, they'll begin demanding they get local money the same way.

The question is what "strings" would the feds tie to money sent to parents?

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 10, 2014, 01:17:01 PM
The question is what "strings" would the feds tie to money sent to parents?

Well, the real question is what the feds are doing doling out education money in the first place.

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 10, 2014, 01:31:11 PM
Well, the real question is what the feds are doing doling out education money in the first place.

Getting school systems dependent upon them so they can tell the systems how to run their particular system and the parents lose local control. It is the Marxist playbook.

Does anyone think the Chicago Teacher's Union will just lie down and accept vouchers???  No way. 

I got a great education from a Chicago Public School, but no one says that now.  It is so complicated in regard to family structure, or lack thereof that contributes to "bad" schools.  They have to stop defecating in their own nests.

I keep wondering if immigration is a big issue among LEGAL CITIZENS, even of Mexican origin.  Or is it largely vocal Hispanic advocates, a la Luis Gutierrez?  Squeaky wheels often get the grease. 

It doesn't rank high when the country overall is polled.

DaisyJane   

Quote from: DaisyJane on November 10, 2014, 02:43:57 PM
Does anyone think the Chicago Teacher's Union will just lie down and accept vouchers???  No way. 

I got a great education from a Chicago Public School, but no one says that now.  It is so complicated in regard to family structure, or lack thereof that contributes to "bad" schools.  They have to stop defecating in their own nests.

I keep wondering if immigration is a big issue among LEGAL CITIZENS, even of Mexican origin.  Or is it largely vocal Hispanic advocates, a la Luis Gutierrez?  Squeaky wheels often get the grease. 

It doesn't rank high when the country overall is polled.

DaisyJane   

In a recent Gallup survey, folks seemed to think the issue was fairly important. When all issues presented in the survey are lumped together, immigration ranked fifth (out of 47); among non-economic issues, it was third, behind only "dissatisfaction with government" and "healthcare." It beat out issues such as Ebola, ISIS, foreign affairs, income inequality, terrorism, race relations, crime/violence, the environment, and many others.

Having it come in as fifth doesn't seem to make it crucial. 

But, is the importance stopping it or allowing amnesty?

DaisyJane   

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 10, 2014, 01:17:01 PM
The question is what "strings" would the feds tie to money sent to parents?

Pell Grants and other student college loans. No more, no less. Basically you just have to be an institution of higher learning above the K-12 level. So now the federal money that used to go in block grants to states, would go to individuals.

Immigration though important is not a pressing issue for most Americans. It is however important to Obama because he needs a distraction from everything else. It's a political issue. How many actual days will this current congress have to work an immigration bill? 15? 20? Obama wants to do it himself and take the credit. I say let him do it. Let him have it.

Quote from: DaisyJane on November 10, 2014, 04:10:41 PM
Having it come in as fifth doesn't seem to make it crucial. 

But, is the importance stopping it or allowing amnesty?

DaisyJane   

Well, what is 'crucial' in your opinion? Fourth? Third? Why is the word 'seem' in your appraisal at all?