U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 15, 2008 07:04 PM UTC
37 Comments
That any candidate would do something so stupid. I wonder how much McCasky’s campaign paid them–was it a decent wage, or did they pay them $2 an hour?
Good job by Jason Bane to expose this. Politically, it’s horrible for the McCasky campaign (and therefore good for Bane.)
Those who aspire for political office, take note: check the legal status of your campaign workers! If you’re going to pay them, make sure they’re here legally. Especially when you’re running on a “let’s get tough on illegal immigration” platform.
In other words, we’re guilty, this is really bad for us, we have no excuse. I love it when rank hypocrasy takes a politician down.
because those illegals are so economical!
What a joke the GOP is. Hope they head for hills at all levels of govenment.
If the 2006 special session laws are applied here at all. Wasn’t it HB-1017 that made knowingly hiring illegal immigrants a crime?
the campaign has hired a consultant or contractor, who then provides labor. Sure, those companies should be following all the rules.
All I’m saying is, I’m curious if the campaign employed these guys, or if they hired someone who employed these guys.
While I’m all for outing the hypocrisy here, I couldn’t care less if a campaign hired undocumented workers to distribute info so long as they are being compensated the same as anyone else. These are PEOPLE and they deserve the right to make money, feed themselves and their families. And don’t give me any “they took our jobs” crap — these are jobs readily available that NOBODY wants to do.
The fact that Bane assumed they were illegal immigrants the second he learned they couldn’t speak English is a bit disturbing. If they had spoken with Minnesota accents would he have suspected them of being Canadians?
were a better candidate, he’d have volunteers who were willing to do these jobs.
As it is, McCaskey should have learned from fellow Republican Tom Tancredo that you don’t hire illegal immigrants to do anything in public….you confine them to remodeling your basement.
Never mind he had a basement full of people speaking nothing but Spanish and anti-illegal immigration is his signature issue so maybe he should have asked. But if these guys really don’t care who their contractors are using then they are clearly just cynics using the issue for rabble rousing and political points. As in Tancredo’s case, no surprise there.
Young male, monolingual Spanish speaker. Would he be from southern Colorado or the San Luis Valley, last home of the monolingual Spanish citizen?
Not bloody well likely.
It would make more sense to have your own volunteers out doing the lit drops. They can even talk to voters while doing it too.
…having people who want you elected enough that they volunteer.
Yes, I know it’s all about the HYPROCRISY. Meanwhile he’s trying to capitalize on anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiment.
Calling people “illegals”? There’s so thing as an “illegal immigrant” under federal immigration law, I’ve been told. Throwing around the term “illegals” is the language of the anti-immigrant movement.
Also, how is it relevant that they didn’t speak “a word of English”? Is the Queen’s English a requirement for citizenship? Lordy…then a lot of people who post on this site are in danger of deportation.
…gosh, now that my English is slipping, my citizenship may be evaporating along with it!
As for the Queen’s English, meh. I prefer Scott Thompson’s.
…since when is a word of English a requirement for citizenship?
If you are native born there is no language requirement. But if you apply for citizenship you must pass an English language competency exam.
My neighbor’s adopted baby just became a citizen before she could learn English or any other language. I have a great picture of her holding a little American flag, and the next one on the roll was her trying to eat the American flag. I plan on using that to my advantage some day. I’ve always said the opportunity to mess with a developing mind is a terrible thing to waste.
When Bane started asking questions, they should have tried to eat American flags.
but the parent needs to know simple English just to answer the questions. Unless I’m missing something (that’s an unofficial site).
Full law and many more
here
My fault.
First, because people born here are citizens regardless of whether they ever speak English, speaking English is, in fact, not a requirement of citizenship.
Second, the law you cite about naturalization has exceptions (see below) which also demonstrate that speaking English is not a requirement of citizenship.
Third, and this is my partially my fault again for veering off the track, the opposite of the (false) label “illegal immigrant” is “legal immigrant” (not a “citizen”). And for sure you don’t need to speak English to be a legal immigrant/resident alien. So for Jason Bane to assume that people were “illegals” because they didn’t speak English was stupid and offensive and simply playing to the anti-immigrant hysteria.
—
Exceptions to the naturalization “English-speaking” requirement cited above:
(b) Exceptions. The following persons need not demonstrate an ability to read, write and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language:
(1) A person who, on the date of filing of his or her application for naturalization, is over 50 years of age and has been living in the United States for periods totalling at least 20 years subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence;
(2) A person who, on the date of filing his or her application for naturalization, is over 55 years of age and has been living in the United States for periods totalling at least 15 years subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence; or
(3) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to any person who is unable, because of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments which has lasted or is expected to last at least 12 months, to demonstrate an understanding of the English language as noted in paragraph (a) of this section. The loss of any cognitive abilities based on the direct effects of the illegal use of drugs will not be considered in determining whether a person is unable to d emonstrate an understanding of the English language. For purposes of this paragraph, the term medically determinable means an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which can be shown by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques to have resulted in functioning so impaired as to render an individual unable to demonstrate an understanding of the English language as required by this section, or that renders the individual unable to fulfill the requirements for English proficiency, even with reasonable modifications to the methods of determining English proficiency as outlined in paragraph (c) of this section. (Revised 3/19/97; 62 FR 12915 ) (Corrected 4/2/97; 62 FR 15751 ) (Amended effective 3/22/99; 64 FR 7990 )
There is a gap in the story from the original sighting of campaign workers to talking to one of their uncles.
I would assume that a candidate saw people passing out fliers for another candidate and stopped to ask some questions. Any candidate would. Probably when confronted the people panicked a bit, nobody likes to be spoken to in another language. In order to offer explanation one worker calls an English speaking relative who tells the candidate that the reason the workers are panicked is because they are here illegally.
I’m not sure how else that would have gone down. The article says nothing about him demanding to see a green card, or anything like that.
Further, I don’t buy that any citizen of the country wouldn’t have picked up a little English. Most English speakers have picked up a little Spanish. It happens when you are surrounded by any language. Not that it matters, that not what the discussion is about.
Citizens are not legal residents, they are citizens.
One more thing about the exceptions; how old would you assume that door hangers are? Over 50? When I think of people running around putting fliers on houses I think of people between 20 and 30, regardless of nationality or language.
…that’s why I offered my third point.
Bane called the people “illegals” (a stupid term). Anyway, his term necessarily implies that the people are not here “legally.” So Bane was saying that not only were these people not citizens but also they were not legal residents. And he said this because they didn’t speak English. As I said, speaking English is not a requirement of being a legal resident. So Bane’s conclusion was stupid and had the effect, not coincidentally I fear, of playing on anti-immigrant hysteria.
I have no idea how old “door hangers” are. I assume that people who need money will work for money regardless of their age.
because one of the worker’s relatives told him that they are no here legally. I don’t know how the guy came to be on the phone, but that’s where the final conclusion came from. It doesn’t say in the article what led up to it.
I do agree that the term “illegals” is stupid. Did you read Colbert’s book? He has a chapter dedicated basically to the term. One point, his spell check says that it doesn’t exist.
People of all ages that need money work, or should, but probably not running around neighborhoods. I doubt that anyone would hire an older person for that job. Just like how a construction outfit wouldn’t hire my mom. She’s getting on and is frail. You just wouldn’t pay by the hour for her.
As I pointed out above, non-English speaking monolingual Spanish speaking middle aged and below are not citizens. The great monolingual Spanish pockets in the US have pretty much faded into history. Mostly just old folks. Their children and grandchildren have learned English. They’ve left the farms and the mines, gotten satellite TV, attended schools.
(I respect monolingual, whatever language, citizens, BTW. That means Spanish or native languages.)
The correct, legal, term for people in this country who aren’t supposed to be here is, AFAIK, “illegal alien.” In fact, an immigrant is one who has immigrated, gone through a legal process, not walked over the border.
…you clearly have not read what I posted above, else you wouldn’t still be trying to defend the notion that non-English-speaker=illegal immigrant.
and I’ve no idea what “AFAIK” is. Is that English or are you an alien?
And please cite the law which recognizes or establishes the condition of “illegal alien.” Thanks so much!
of “illegal alien”
Here it is in the USCIS glossary
http://www.uscis.gov/files/art…
Here’s a search that will bring up many instances of use. These include laws, legal findings and even pilot programs.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/si…
AFAIK: As Far As I Know
Any other questions?
I was sincerely interested in this info; so I sincerely appreciate your post.
But I’ll be glad when you fade, fade away.
…you’ll never guess what Skyler said to me today …..
I can very much defend the notion that monolingual Spanish speakers of middle and lower ages are probably illegal aliens. It’s just statistics and demographics.
Thank you droll!
..I was dicussing the essential, legal requiremens for citizenship…and then for legal residency. You seem to be talking about probabilities that one might be undocumented. Apples and oranges.
I’m not going to go back to the start of the thread and re-read everything, but I distinctly recall you questioning why the candidate presumed them to be illegals. I thought you were saying that one could not ID an illegal partly through the use of Spanish.
Citizenship was never a topic.
Am I wrong?
“What a maroon!”