.
.
.
Just across the transom E-MAIL from Congresswoman Sanchez (who I’m betting is NOT gonna go up against Kamala for Senate.) We agree with Lo here: the Congressional Republicans playing to their immigrant-hating base BY tearing apart immigrant families BY holding up Department of Homeland Security funding right in the wake of the Paris attacks shows that not only “no tienen verguenza,” but also son pinche putos sin madres. But hey, a lot of you guys keep voting for these pendejos, so what’s up with that? Mira no mas…
REP. LORETTA SANCHEZ: HOUSE GOP HITS NEW LOW
WITH DANGEROUS ANTI-IMMIGRANT VOTEWASHINGTON – Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (CA-46), senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee, today criticized House Republican’s partisan vote to roll back Obama’s executive actions on immigration, including the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
“Today’s vote confirms that Republicans are willing to do anything, including endanger our national security, to score political points through anti-immigrant measures,” said Rep. Sanchez. “They have no shame. No tienen verguenza.”
Yesterday, Rep. Sanchez spoke on the House floor in opposition to the measure. The image links to a video of her speech and the transcript follows:
“The Republican majority has decided they’re willing to shut down the agency that detects, deters and responds to threats to our Homeland. With an elevated terror-alert status and in light of the devastating attacks in Paris, they must have a good reason, right? Wrong.
“They’re holding essential anti-terrorism funding hostage because they want to score political points. They’re stopping programs our law enforcement rely on because they want to deport DREAM Act kids. They’re putting our homeland security – our entire way of life – at risk because they want to separate mothers from their children.
“There is a phrase in Spanish that describes this behavior: “no tienen verguenza.” They have no shame.
“Stop playing games with our national security; put forward a clean funding bill.”
###
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez is proud to represent California’s 46th Congressional District, which includes the cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana, and parts of the cities of Garden Grove and Orange in Orange County.
Love that gals balls!
*Sweet Loretta……..where is that bucket of water again? Just kidding, she is great and if Kamala Harris had not decided to run for Barbara Boxer’s seat……Loretta could have had a better than even chance.
Ssscccrrreeeeeeeeccchhhhh ………
That’s okay, you can soothe your ears in between screeches with Reverend Al’s bellowing!!! :-/
Fingernails on a blackboard. I almost feel sorry for Jack.
I as a third generation on my mothers side and seventh on my dads side, I have observed that instead of Lo basing her career on the immigrant card, she should encourage the newly immigrants to pay their full taxes to help pay for the welfare services that the other freeloaders take advantage of. Just a thought. Do I sound hateful }:D
What makes you think that Loretta doesn’t encourage them to pay their full taxes?
More ignorant than hateful, but a little hateful. The “freeloaders” are the big banks getting money and risk-protection for nothin’, and the defense contractors and Pringle-type connected middlemen — but looking down on them probably just doesn’t feel as good, does it? (Plus, it’s a little dangerous — unlike those on welfare, they are powerful and willing to fight back.) Thanks for stopping by!
I think “Watchdog” Loretta is calling kettles black with accusations of Demagoguery, as she fills a fairly large cauldron of that herself. While I disagree that lavish DHS funding supports “our entire way of life”, it certainly supports a GOOD CHUNK of HERS, remarried to a Defense industry Lobbyist, and, per opensecrets.org, receiving almost 20 percent of her PAC funding from major Defense Contractors and their allied unions.
With all her cheer leading about DHS funding bill passage, WHY was there NARY a peep AND A SOLID YES VOTE FROM HER for the last defense bill, which gave carte blanche to the NSA for domestic surveillance? Way to go, “Watchdog” !!
Yes, Lolita is an firmly adhered barnacle on the bottom of the SS Military-Industrial Complex.
Been to the rallies and org fund raising, did not hear her ever speak on taxes, only asking for hand outs from the sympathetic folks to who volenteered time and money for needy folks.
LO is all about LO.
Ignorance does not want to hear others opinions and or facts.
But bless her heart.
“Lo.” That’s what Humbert Humbert called Lolita!
Well, it’s also what Jack, and all Loretta’s friends and family, call Loretta.
Perfect. It works on so many levels.
Short for LOL, as well.
“David” was Son of Sam’s real first name, you know. (Equally pertinent and important.)
I guess you never got one of Lo’s Christmas cards.
In the book, Lolita was 12. If Loretta was sending out holiday cards like that when she was 12, then I stand corrected.
And yes, I did get one of her cards one year when I had acted respectably.
Yes, in the book Lolita was 12 and therefore had an excuse for acting like a 12 year old.
Loretta’s not acting like a 12-year-old there. She’s acting like a lot of adult women who can get away with it act. (And she’s probably not “acting,” either.)
Is there redemption value on LORETTA?
Please.
No one is looking to “separate mothers from their children.”
In fact, I’d bet that you can’t find a single person who has expressed this.
Our nation’s immigration laws should be enforced.
If for no other reason, we owe it to those immigrants who do follow the legal process.
Child born here to a mother who does not have citizenship or other authorization to reside here.
Do you let the mother stay, do you deport the child along with the mother, or do you separate the mother from her child?
That’s not an uncommon choice that enforcement of our laws presents.
You address the law breaking mother.
hypothetical-
Child born here to a mother who commits robbery or murder.
Do you let the mother stay out of jail, do you jail the child along with the mother, or do you separate the mother from her child?
That’s not an uncommon choice that enforcement of our laws presents.
seems to be a pretty clear decision.
ps- Isn’t this article about “Dreamers” who were not born here?
And here you are comparing living and working in the states without proper documentation or with expired documentation … to MURDER OR ROBBERY?
Come back with a more apt parallel.
as I wrote – hypothetical.
My point wasn’t to offend, but to illustrate that children are often affected by the decisions of their parents.
maybe a more apt parallel would be a person who is convicted of a state or federal offense for using drugs – they are subject to a lifetime ban on receiving cash assistance and food stamps.
This certainly affects children.