Read a Joel McNally column (“The Capital Times,” May 26, 2006) addressing the illegal immigration debate and the role of Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner. It really is a good read, in my opinion. Here is a link to the column. However, the paragraph from McNally below really sums up my feelings about our Brookfield bigot.
If Sensenbrenner really wanted to be honest about what he's up to, he would
simply add an amendment declaring white to be our national color.
1 Swings of the bat:
Not even a good try, Clint. Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act has nothing to do (specifically) with the Hispanic population. Here is the key passage of the section:
A State or political subdivision is a covered State or political subdivision for the purposes of this subsection if the Director of the Census determines, based on census data, that -
(i)(I) more than 5 percent of the citizens of voting age of such State or political subdivision are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient;
(II) more than 10,000 of the citizens of voting age of such political subdivision are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient; or
(III) in the case of a political subdivision that contains all or any part of an Indian reservation, more than 5 percent of the American Indian or Alaska Native citizens of voting age within the Indian reservation are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient; and
(ii) the illiteracy rate of the citizens in the language minority as a group is higher than the national illiteracy rate.
If any of these hold true anywhere then bi-lingual ballots are required.
In other words, you mislead by attempting to claim Sensenbrenner's benevolence regarding the Hispanic population.
Rather, this section has to do with any minority population that reaches a certain population threshold.
Don't want to piss off prospective voters across the country, especially those with some economic clout.
Post a Comment