Buchanan: "Sí, se puede" is "the cause of the illegal immigration movement and the amnesty movement"
Discussing Sen. Barack Obama's use of the phrase "yes, we can," in recent speeches, Pat Buchanan said: " 'Yes, we can. Sí, se puede.' That's Hispanic. That's the cause of the illegal immigration movement and the amnesty movement."
On the January 15 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, during a discussion of what Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) would need to do to win that evening's Las Vegas Democratic presidential debate, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan asserted that Obama would use "that refrain he used in New Hampshire: 'Yes, we can.' " Buchanan continued: " 'Yes, we can. Sí, se puede.' That's Hispanic. That's the cause of the illegal immigration movement and the amnesty movement." Obama has recently used the refrain "yes, we can" in speeches.
"Sí, se puede" (Spanish for "yes, we can") is the motto of the United Farm Workers. According to a January 12 Las Vegas Sun article, "Culinary workers in Las Vegas recognized [Yes, we can'] as the labor slogan popularized by United Farm Workers leader Cesar Chavez. Indeed, the phrase, in Spanish, is plastered all over the walls of the union's headquarters." Similarly, during the discussion on Hardball, Jon Ralston of the Sun stated: "Let me tell you about 'Yes, we can' ... that's the chant of the culinary union workers here. That's why [Obama is] saying it so much. He's led these rallies here with the culinary, chanting both in Spanish." Later in the segment, Buchanan stated: "But again, this "sí, se puede" thing. It means one thing to the culinary workers, but I'll tell you, to Middle America, which saw those, you know, all those Mexican flags and all those guys chanting it, it means something else entirely."
An April 11, 2006, Washington Post article with the headline "The Enduring Motto of a Movement" noted:
[The slogan's] origins lie with the Hispanic farmworker labor movement. In 1972, César Chávez, a United Farm Workers of America co-founder and Mexican American labor leader, embarked on a 25-day fast to protest Arizona's anti-farmworker labor laws. When supporters began to doubt that the laws could be changed, UFW co-founder Dolores Huerta, also Mexican American, responded, "Sí se puede."
Chávez adopted the slogan, as did the UFW, which still uses it. According to the UFW's Web site, www.ufw.org, the "sí se puede attitude" is one of the group's core values. The organization defines it as the "embodiment of a personal and organizational spirit that promotes confidence, courage and risk taking."
As Media Matters for America documented, Buchanan has previously claimed that immigration will result in the "complete balkanization of America" and an "invasion of the United States of America." Further, Buchanan claimed that illegal immigration threatens to reduce America to "a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities."
From the January 15 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball. Now for the politics fix tonight. Let's go to the roundtable. Roger Simon is from politico.com; Jon Ralston is with the LA -- the Las Vegas, I should say, Sun; and MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan's back home. Pat, you start this off. I want to end up with a scrum back here. Let's talk fight talk tonight, the big tonight. It is a fight. Who's going to look good, who's not. Barack Obama, doesn't he have to carry the fight to the champ of last week, Hillary Clinton?
BUCHANAN: I think he does, Chris. And I wouldn't be surprised, you know that refrain he used in New Hampshire, "Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Sí, se puede." That's Hispanic. That's the cause of the illegal immigration movement and the amnesty movement. I wouldn't be surprised to see him going at that issue and to see the moderators, however, refocusing this issue on the hottest subject of the week, which is who raised the race issue and who benefits from it.
MATTHEWS: OK, let me go to Roger. Roger, "yes, we can" sounds fine with me. It sounds generally available to all of us. We all can. Pat says it's a tribalist kind of a chant that should be avoided, I think.
SIMON: I think it's just more of Obama's message of hope and unity. I don't think it's anything more than that. And about tonight's debate, you have to keep in mind, I think, that Obama's strength has never been his debate performances. And he's always let John Edwards lead the attack on Hillary Clinton and then he's --
[...]
MATTHEWS: Revisionism is endemic here to this business. Let me ask you, Jon, it seems to me out here -- I got a rise out of Pat. Let me get -- this issue tonight, it is a fight game. We are in Vegas. This is a heavyweight championship or a light heavyweight, if you will. What is going to happen tonight?
RALSTON: Well, the "yes, we can" -- let me tell you about "yes, we can," first of all. If he starts saying that tonight, that's the chant of the culinary union workers here. That's why he's saying it so much. He's led these rallies here with the culinary, chanting both in Spanish.
MATTHEWS: OK, how many people have this chant? It's Latino. It's what? It's culinary. What else is it?
SIMON: It was Jesse Jackson.
RALSTON: That's right, but now --
MATTHEWS: I am somebody was Jesse, I think.
RALSTON: He has used that here several times to energize the culinary workers, which are the big union here that endorsed him.
MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you, Pat. You know how these things are scored out here in these debates. They come down to bicentennial moments, we call them. One event, one back-and-forth becomes replayed and played for days and months, or at least weeks. What's it going to be tonight? Will there be an uppercut, some sort of a shot at Hillary by one of the two other guys? Will it be some defense of Hillary? Will it be a Hillary brilliant counterpunch? What's it going to be?
BUCHANAN: I think Edwards has got to go on the offensive. He really does. And my guess is he probably goes at both of them. I think that that's going to be a major moment for him. But I honestly think, Chris, because we've all been talking about it and it is explosive, they're going to re-raise this issue of who raised the race issue, if you will, who did what. They'll rerun that because that's the kind of stuff that gets in headlines and we all talk about. But on the economy they're all going to come down, I think, with good, strong packages and stimulus packages. I don't see any sharp area of disagreement. But again, this "sí, se puede" thing. It means one thing to the culinary workers, but I'll tell you, to Middle America, which saw those, you know, all those Mexican flags and all those guys chanting it, it means something else entirely. I think Obama's going to work that vein because Hispanics are a surging part of the population of Las Vegas and Nevada and a growing part of the electorate, and that's what he's got to have.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I have no doubt Obama has adopted "Yes we can" to garner hispanic votes. The blacks and hispanics have not had the best relationship, and some say that hispanics are unlikely to vote for a black presidential candidate. I saw a program on BET last night discussing the brown-black racial problems in LA. Hispanics are now the largest non-white minority in the US, and in LA they greatly outnumber the blacks and the ones involved in gangs are fiercely territorial.
Buchanan is somewhat correct in saying that to "middle America", at least WHITE middle America, "Si se puede" can mean a call for open borders, amnesty, and other lax immigration policies, probably because during the immigration rallies "Si se puede" was the main rally chant.
But for Buchanan to claim that this motto CAUSES anything is, of course, ridiculous.
I think that the number of latino's voting Republican this year could be expressed in percentage figures of a single digit.
For the Democratic Primary I suppose it could resonate positively to Obama's benefit.
Think Chris has changed his meds? Pat's being enabled, I suppose that works for all concerned.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/652/hispanics-2008-election
Some 57% of Hispanic registered voters now call themselves Democrats or say they lean to the Democratic Party, while just 23% align with the Republican Party
Their electoral clout continues to be undercut, however, by the fact that many are ineligible to vote, either because they are not citizens or not yet 18 years old. In 2008, Latinos will comprise about 9% of the eligible electorate nationwide. If past turnout trends persist, they will make up only about 6.5% of those who actually turn out to vote next November. But despite these modest numbers, Hispanics loom as a potential "swing vote" in next year's presidential race.
Any idea if Pat thinks Rudy's Spanish ad could be the cause?
He wants to re-focus the presidential campaign away from the issues that inflict harm to Republicans such as the recession, the war, healthcare etc. etc.
So... Buchanan is busy doing his "Yes We Can" Chant. For a counterattack, here are some new Democratic chants...
The Bush Economy!
The Bush War!
Republican Scandals!
No More NeoCons!
Where is Osama?
The republicans may have caused the recession?!? Not bloody likely. You think that the rich getting richer is a bad thing? It is the liberal Sh!tting away of money, In your rush to help the poor you have inadvertently made their situation even worse. The moster of big government that you have created is going to and is now coming around to bite you in the @ss, but you are not there to recieve what is meant for you, you blame it on the republicans.
You're correct Fin Man... You are the one who shows everyone what nonsense is... Every time you post a comment OR every time your lips start moving it's total and complete nonsense.
Mr Buchanan may think he knows Spanish, but doesn't. The cry of the Hispanics "Si, se puede" is translated literally into English: Yes, it's doable. There is no "we" in the sentence "Si, se puede". It's a neutral form. A better translation, would be "yes, is possible" because that's what Americans would say. "Si, se puede" is used in Spanish when we want to encourage others to find a way.
So Senator Obama statement "Yes, we can" would be translated into English: "Si, podemos" The Spanish word "podemos" incorporates the pronoun "we".
"Si, podemos" is used when we want to encourage those in our group to achieve a goal. It would be inappropriate for Hispanics to cry "Si, podemos" because it's not in their power to change the rules, and they know they can/t
Got it?
Buchanan's been spot on in the illegal immigation debate for years. Paramount among his claims, which was amply evidenced by so many of the participants in the pro-amnesty demonstrations, is that an increasing number of illegal immigrants no longer desire to assimilate into American culture. For that reason, Buchanan is correctly concerned that America no longer will be a melting pot of all kinds of different groups who, despite coming from very different cultures, nonetheless share a common desire to be 'American" and embrace our laws and language. Instead, as Buchanan puts it, there simply will be a number of disparate groups, with many individuals who by their refusal to enter this country legally, display an obvious disrespect for our laws or sovereignty. I witnessed some of these demonstrations first hand, and the open disregard for America's laws and sovereignty exhibited by the chants and sign of so many of these protesters, was utterly despicable.
Buchanan amply supports all of his arguments in his books. And his blame goes across the board, and holds corporate America equally accountable for the current illegal alien fiasco and all of its deleterious consequences.
You talk a good gameTS, but evidence and examples would be nice. Heresay and bias do not delegitimise an argument, but dosn't take me anywhere or give me much to consider.
Do you consider the fence along our southern border the Deux ex machina for the problem of immigrants with brown skins?
If you see a foolish racial inuendo by me, my apologies. Iluminate me on this.
Historically fences and entrenched borders work 30-50% of the time. The Japanese probably were the most sucessful. Large spaces of sea gave them an advantage. I don't see that it did anything good for their culture or the rest of the world. You have to consider how they reemerged into world culture after their isolation.
I went round and round with Mefirst a bit on the issue that if it is profitable to business to bring in people illegally, that fence might as well be built of swiss cheese.
If you have a good example of this fence building doing the situation and countries a good benifit, please bring it out. I can bring up several where they didn't work or the end was tragic.
The movement of populations is best stopped by changing the conditions that cause the movement at its source. People usually feel a strong attachment to their homeland. They leave it reluctently, it is the culture that they grew up in and are comfortable with. If they are allowed to be.
First, it was the gratuitous mention of "bias" and the inference that Buchanan maybe opposes illegal immigrants because of their "brown skin."
Moreover, I do not say that a border fence is a cure-all remedy, but it will effectively serve as part of the solution. That being said, I think there is a distinction between a country using a fence to keep people from illegally violating their sovereignty and countries who use fences to prevent people from migrating. If, for example, a fence were built all around Mexico that prevented its people from migrating anywhere, that would be problematic. It would be problematic in the same ways as the berlin wall.
But I don't see any moral or ethical problem with a country deciding to build a fence to help prevent the tide of illegal immigrants disregarding our law and entering the country without our knowing their identity. In short, I see no problem with erecting a fence to preserve our border with Mexico. I'm not entirely familiar with your example of Japan, but again, I'm thinking of something along the lines of the berlin wall, which is inapposite in the sense that the "wall" prevented east german citizens from migrating to countries even when they wanted to enter those countries in accord with their immigration laws.
Furthermore, Buchanan routinely lambasts corporate America for targeting illegal immigrants and paying them dismal wages that, in turn, work to decrease the wages of legal American workers. He devoted large portions in his last two books on this topic.
The bias call was not gratuitus. Trying to trace the historys of defensive walls isn't easy. I've picked up bits and pieces from years of reading history. Still, look into Hadrians Wall, The Great wall of China, The Berlin/ Iron Curtain. Mangioux (sp?) Line of Frence forts built to keep out the Germans.
I still maintain that work in the countries producing thesae immigrants would be cheaper and more effective than trying to wall them off. Also the walls work both ways. The citizens of the building counrty tend to find themselves inconveinienced and restrained, possibly imprisoned by the walls they built.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Buchanan is the most dangerous of xenophobes, he appears in many ways as very civil, as a sincere man with sincere, though misguided views.
He allows those of us, that is most of us to suspend our rational, humane impulse to the idea that we would deport 12million Latinos imported here with the promise of employment, instead of the vastly simpler solution of fining, and arresting those whom would employ illegal immigrants.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Am I wrong here or does "si, se puede" mean "yes, you can"(also means "yes, she/he can"). Isn't "yes we can","Si, nos podemos"?
I forgot it also meant 'it"
Thanx for the refresher!
That's how high the ladder will be for BROWN Workers in search of the American Dream.
WHY?... Because our laws won't allow them to come thru our front door to be LEGAL CITIZENS. You don't care what color their skin is? It's brown! So if you don't want them to work here it's possible that you, like many others look down on brown human beings. This has happen many times in our history were different cultures were not welcomed.
Buchanan isn't complaining about other races? Such as all the other racial groups keeping their cultures alive in our country. He would never go to one of those German towns and force them to speak English. Or send them back to Germany. They are free! This is the home of the free and land of the brave. Buchanan won't send GERMANS back home.
If the KKK was crossing our border Buchanan would take down STEVE'S FENCE and install a huge Statue of Liberty to welcome them to this great free country. Canada and other countries are doing fine with more than one language and culture.
You invoked the Berlin Wall. OK.. Well your wall would have fit in perfectly for Adolf Hitler to keep Jews, Mexicans, Myself and others out of Germany. Nobody would become legal unless they are blond with blue eyes.
Good Luck STEVE... With you fence and forcing everyone to be just like you.
Your inane rant is barely comprehensible. But to correct some of your childish insinuations, I'm a mix of spanish, irish and lithuanian, with relatives still in Montevideo, Uruguay, although I've never been there to visit. Your comments about only wanting blond-haired, blue eyed immigrants in this country are therefore asinine.
Your comments regarding PB and the KKK are so absurd and, not surprisingly, unsupported, that they are undeserving of any further comment.
Further, I don't know what you're talking about in terms of hitler and the berlin wall, for he had long since been dead by the time that wall was erected. Nice try though.
Buchanan, like I, seek to preserve America's sovereignty and borders. There's no racism about it. In part, we want to protect the average american worker against the influx of immigrants who undercut our wages. And I, personally, think it imperative that our immigration laws be enforced so that we know who''s coming to our country, and can effectively assimilate immigrants into our culture.
Are you an advocate of open borders?
Furthermore, I speak nothing of the 12 million illegal immigrants presently here. As to them, I think it neither feasible nor fair to deport them.
Well Steve... I defended your freedoms to Personally think whatever the hell you want ... with 5 tours in the combat zone, so you go for it man. AND...
I'm also for knowing who comes here, but OUR LAWS are just like your FENCE. They are used to keep Mexicans out. I agree with GWB, McCain and many others on this matter.
You, I thought, agree with Buchanan. He wants to keep this country WHITE. It's on the historical record. You did a mini-Commercial for his book so I was thinking perhaps you too want to force this country to remain WHITE. Is that who you are? Would you vote for a black or a brown man or even a woman for your president? I would. It's exiting and refreshing! It's about time too.
"Effectively Assimilate Immigrants"... Is that Code for forcing people to trash their culture in favor of yours? From your comments this appears to be the case. If it isn't you have my apology.
I'll say it once more, and then I'm done...
Good Luck with your Fence and with forcing your culture on immigrants and Americans who are free to enjoy whatever culture they like best. This is not Hitler's Germany and the Wall in Germany worked OK for me. If you didn't think so, that's OK with me too.
Brief reply. As noted above, the berlin wall and the border fence are not analogous. I, and probably the same with Buchanan, do not dwell over illegal aliens flooding our borders because their Mexicans. Their ethnicity is an irrelevant circumstance. What's relevant is that America borders on another country that has no regard for our immigation laws. Further relevant is that there continues to be an influx of illegals, who are encouraged by those who have no problem with open borders. And this huge influx is unfair to ordinary american citizens in many ways, including that it broaden's the welfare state and cheapens wages. So the purpose of the fence is to keep large numbers of people from entering the country ILLEGALLY. So save your bullsh*t insinuations that wanting to preserve the borders is somehow racist.
And you're absolutely right -- I do want all immigrants who come here to be "America firsters", with their primary allegiance to this country. I agree that the plethora of different cultures is part of what has made this country great, but still there are common threads that heretofore have enabled all the distinct cultures to identify with one another as americans. Two of these commonalities are the english language and respect for our laws. Illegal immigrants, regardless of where from, obviously fail in the latter regard.
So there's no code for wanting people to "trash" their culture. My view is that immigrants should embrace and respect America's, including its sovereignty, language, and laws, if they want to make America their home.
"You, I thought, agree with Buchanan. He wants to keep this country WHITE. .... perhaps you too want to force this country to remain WHITE. Is that who you are? Would you vote for a black or a brown man or even a woman for your president? I would. It's exiting and refreshing! It's about time too." -sams comp
A desire to keep this country white is a noble goal, Buchanan only seeks to protect his culture. And about the presidency, the race or gender of the person should be totally irrelavent, A black or woman (or even both) will not make a good or bad president solely for these reasons. If you want to be refreshed, then jump into the ice-cold spring of reality. People like you should just not vote. Would you vote for a man such as judge Clarence Thomas? I do not think so.
Fin,
"A desire to keep this country white is a noble goal..."
You showed your cards right there. Disgusting.
It's on the historical record. If you can't keep up with history you shouldn't be making such statements about Buchanan. I forgive you though because you inserted the word "Probably". But seriously Steve... Please keep up with statements made by the people you believe in. His book was written very carefully as to not say the things he would be ashamed of. Such as his real honest feelings from his heart of hearts that have come out very clearly when interviewed. Buchanan has said he wants to retain white power, and a white America. That includes our government office holders. Shame on you for coming here without the facts.
The wall works for me because you remind me of a dictator from Germany. I know the Berlin Wall history and I'll insert your wall there anytime I want to show you another good example of the wall you want here. Your wall would have been perfect for Hitler.
Even the "Decider" GWB, is more humane with immigrants than you Buchanan and the FIN man. Speaking of which....And I Quote:
"A desire to keep this country white is a noble goal" - - FINARFIN - -
Hello Fin man... Those are the exact words spoken to me when I interview KKK members which includes Grand Dragons and others who are now spending their lives in prison. Judging from your past posts Fin-Fin, you would fit into that outfit perfectly. While I'm swimming in ice water you'll be having fun burning crosses and hanging blacks.
You picked the right torture for me though... I cannot stand being cold or in ice water.
America is for all of us to share together in peace.
The continuous rhetoric of PHONEY, FEARFUL Bull Poop, such as the war coming here, immigrants invading, socialized healthcare etc. are being pushed to the forefront by Republicans to scare us into voting for them again. It's Not Gonna Work!
Instead of GWB they all invoke Ronald Reagan.
Instead of the RECESSION they talk of Immigrants.
Instead of the WAR they try to assume "Mission Accomplished"
Instead of "Stay The Course" they pretend to be the Party of Change.
Instead of Healthcare they reject it as Socialized Medicine.
Instead of Social Security? No Way! It's Socialized Welfare for Seniors.
Instead of their President, mums the word concerning Bush...
Because Bush wanted a humane immigration plan. NeoCon Republicans killed it so now we have no plan at all. McCain still supports a humane plan for immigrants and most Democrats do too.
BE SURE TO VOTE THIS TIME!