How about foreign illegal immigrant? Last time I checked Mexico is a foreign country. And yes, if a political party has to turn to appealing and appeasing an immigrant population for votes, that's pathetic. Their first and foremost concern should be the natural born, legal citizens they were voted to represent.
I'm not suggesting they be discarded out of hand, but if that is where you go to get the lion's share of your votes and support, who the hell do you represent anyway?
If you think illegal Mexican immigrants are on par with other legal citizens, well then perhaps we should just merge the whole country of Mexico in as a state and appoint them representatives and senators. At least then it would be legitimate.
No, I was making the distinction because "foreign immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" are not interchangeable terms. By its very nature, the word 'immigrant' tends to be synonymous with 'foreign', and the absence of the word 'illegal' would probably suggest that they are green-card-holding citizens. I cannot with good conscience say that we need to create some kind of socio-political hierarchy of which American citizen is better than the other based on whether they were born here or were naturalized and given a green card. There's a reason that naturalized citizens with a legal green card have all the same rights as you or me -- it's because they have been granted equal status as you or me and not any kind of skewed notion of "separate but equal". Take your castes elsewhere.
Is it okay to pander to the religious and fear-monger for your votes, but target immigrants who can legally vote and it's sad? Terrible logic. And what kind of "lion's share" are we talking? The Hispanic population is by no means the majority in the country and you have to also take into account how many of them actually go out and vote when it counts, which further cuts their minority figures. If neither party represents them, then do tell, who will?
All of this isn't even touching on illegal
immigrants. I'm not suggesting that they be given the same rights as a natural-born or card-holding citizen, I couldn't agree to that at all, and I even agree that there should be steps taken to not only reduce the amount of illegal crossings, but to make the legal method easier and more accessible -- but there's a big, glaring hole in your 'concern' for their well-being. Yes, you talk about "responsible and humane" and how they're "taken advantage of", but then you shove distaste on those who are trying to represent them. Who do you think is going to if it's dirty and distasteful for politicians to? The reality of it is, rounding up the millions who are already here is impossible, impractical, and frankly unhealthy for the state of our economy. If you want to talk about basic responsibility and showing some humanity, I would first suggest considering the worth of the individuals who have already established a life here and have contributed positively instead of dehumanizing them.
Acting in the interest of the minority has never been pathetic -- in fact, it's exactly one of the reasons that America does so well as a place of diversity not just in race, but in orientation, financial status, basic beliefs, etc. I don't agree with all of the ideas Democrats have had, I am certainly with you that they need to ensure that any loopholes in bills like this are sealed so they can't be exploited, but speaking on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves is a far more compassionate and responsible and realistic and humane thing to do than to pretend that you can build a wall or give people more guns or round them up in a giant truck and send them back. Illegals probably aren't voting -- and neither are the homeless, those deeply in poverty, the unborn, or animals, but there are still parties trying to act in their interest to create a more stable, responsible, and humane society.