Rick O'Donnell, Republican candidate in Colorado's 7th CD, was not an incumbent. The seat was formerly held by Bob Beauprez, R, who lost his gubernatorial bid.

Anyone who's not blind to the politics of race could see that latino's voted in racial solidarity during the past election and got rid of non-hispanic politicians who were for securing the sovreignity of America's border with Mexico. Latino's want a latinized America, for America to join the ranks of the plethora of Latin American nations. America and Canada, let's not forget Belize, are the sole outposts of non-hispanic populations in the Americas. The Spanish were better colonizers than the English, more efficient and more racist. Now the USA is their target for colonization. If the borders are not secured, we'll be Mexico's northern province in 50 years. It's a fact latino's voted as a racial group, and that they are for illegal immigration. We Americans can't illegally emigrate to Mexico, but it's OK for Mexicans to illegally emigrate to the USA. What a double standard.

I don't consider the term Mexican to mean a racial group anymore than the term American represents a racial group. But, hispamics, primarily Mexicans, consider themselves to be part of some "brown race" and that makes them racists. This is another reason to secure America's borders, to keep the racists out. Or, do English speaking Americans believe that they can open up the border to every economic refugee that the failed economic policices and political corruption in Latin America produces?

Our leaders not securing our border with Mexico will become their greatest failing in our history, as it wasn't immigration but a cleverly planned Mexican invasion, and our leaders didn't even see it coming, and they failed us.

Thanks, removed him from the list of incumbents.

One does not have to be racist to be pro-immigrant.

However, Van Souther's rant was a litany of racism purer than anything I've seen since WWII.

It sounds like a no-brainer when people talk about "securing our southern border." But secure land borders are rare, fleeting things, anywhere in the world, anytime in history. Once upon a time, there was a secure border between East and West Berlin, and between parts of Eastern and Western Europe, but that did not last, and we are better off without it.

Borders are leaky by nature, except sometimes, temporarily, during wars. Famous walls in China and in Roman Britain never secured those borders. And our proposed wall against Mexico will not work either. We can control or regulate that border better, but we never will secure it.

Please do not waste resources on hot-headed, simple minded border boondoggles. A better partnership with Mexico and Mexicans is the only way to improve our southern border.

"But, hispamics, primarily Mexicans, consider themselves to be part of some "brown race" and that makes them racists."

Really Van? You polled "hispamics" [sic], "primarily Mexicans" and they all told you what they "consider themselves to be"?

You are the ignorant racist here, Van, not the "hispamics."

Funny thing is, I'm a conservative Democrat who believes America has legitimate reasons of all kinds to stop illegal immigration and secure our borders, all of our borders.

But every time I try to explain to other Democrats that this issue needs to be dealt with for reasons of national security and to relieve the financial burden on our social systems such as local schools and hospitals brought on by a sudden wave of illegal immigration, then I have to reconcile that with standing next to racists like you.

Really Van, you are an ignorant little creep and you don't help the situation.

And I want to tell you just one more thing, you asshole. I live and work with Hispanics in my little Western town and I'd rather have a thousand of them, than one of you, Pendejo!

The use of the phrase "anti-immigration" is not accurate.

What the article is basically stating is that the only way to win elections is to give in to a race-based desire for open immigration. Let's say 10 million of the Hispanics in the U.S. want to allow more Hispanics to join them, and 10 million more do so. Those 20 million Hispanics will then want to allow more Hispanics to join them, and 10 million more do so. Those 30 million Hispanics will then want to allow more Hispanics to join them, and 10 million more do so. Those 40 million Hispanics will then want to allow more Hispanics to join them, and 10 million more do so...

Well, you get the idea. Since there are a half a billion people south of us, this process could repeat itself for a long time.

Under this new immigration system controlled by one race and having no input from any other Americans, the party that doesn't favor opening the borders will always lose. Since the GOP is never going to "out-Dem the Dems", what you're suggesting is demographic hegemony by the Democratic Party. Perhaps someone should alert the GOP.

Mexican people are not stupid. They know that Republicans often group legal Mexican immigrants in with illegals, and that the people who protest so loudly for border fences on the Mexican border don't seem to be particularly worried about our wide open northen border where Caucasian "illegal aliens" can safely and easily pass into the U.S.. It's pretty obvious that much of the outrage toward "illegals" is actually simply hostility toward brown-skinned people in general.

Leaving aside all other related points, Ebonius is incorrect about the racial (or at least group) identifier. Otherwise, he'd have to really work to explain: "dia de la raza", "la raza cosmica", "national council of la raza" (note: an extremist-linked and extremist-funding group), "el cucuy es raza!" (bus bench ad for L.A. DJ who helped encouraged foreign citizens to march in our streets), "que viva la raza!" (shout from racial demagogues such as Gloria Molina), etc. etc. Whatever you want to call "la raza", it is clearly an in-out identifier: some people are "raza", but Ebonius is clearly not.

Diane says: "[Mexican people] know that Republicans often group legal Mexican immigrants in with illegals".

Of course, those of us who follow these issues realize that a) many Republicans are careful to make the distinction, and b) many illegal immigration supporters are careful to *not* make the distinction. I cannot count the number of newspaper articles I've read - including the dozens or hundreds I've commented on - that try to conflate Mexican citizens who are here illegally with "immigrants" or Mexican-Americans. As for the problem with all those economic illegal immigrants from Canada, there is a mere fraction compared to that from the south - including non-Mexicans. Those who try this same tack are not aware or fail to note the Minuteman Project's attempts to monitor the northern border. Those attempts were mocked by illegal immigration supporters, such as those from the Boston Globe.

Since I'm already here, Diane is also confused about the difference between a proposition and those who support that proposition. Just because, say, the Committee to Free the Five likes broccoli doesn't mean that broccoli is bad. The pro- or anti-broccoli argument is separate from whether some broccoli supporters also have questionable views.

Diane might want to examine how she forms her opinions and whether those offering her information have other agendas, such as profiting from illegal activity.