Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study finds more immigrants equals more Democrats --- and more losses for GOP
Washington Examiner ^ | April 15, 2014 | Byron York

Posted on 04/18/2014 9:30:53 AM PDT by Pelham

Republicans are famously divided on immigration reform, but Democrats pretty much unanimously support it. There's a reason for that.

In stark, partisan political terms, continuing the high level of immigration of recent decades, and certainly increasing immigration as envisioned by many reformers, will result in more Democrats winning more elections in coming years.

"The enormous flow of legal immigrants into the country — 29.5 million from 1980 to 2012 — has remade and continues to remake the nation's electorate in favor of the Democratic Party," concludes a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes comprehensive reform proposals like the Senate "Gang of Eight" bill. "As the immigrant population has grown, Republican electoral prospects have dimmed, even after controlling for alternative explanations of GOP performance."

In the report, author James Gimpel, a University of Maryland professor, looks at the immigrants who have come to the United States in recent decades and those likely to come in the future. Through a lot of complicated statistical analysis and close reading of previous studies, he comes to the same conclusion as anyone who has looked through exit polls in the last 30 years: Immigrants tend to vote Democratic.

A 2012 study of 2,900 foreign-born, naturalized immigrants cited in the report showed that about 62 percent identified themselves as Democrats, while 25 percent identified as Republicans, and 13 percent identified as independents. At this moment, according to the report, there are an estimated 8.7 million immigrants in the U.S. who are eligible for naturalization. Not all will become voting citizens, but somewhere between 50 percent and 60 percent will. And it's a sure bet that a majority will identify themselves as Democrats.

Gimpel cites several reasons why future immigration will likely mean more Democrats. The first is that "immigrants, particularly Hispanics and

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Reference; Society
KEYWORDS: aliens

1 posted on 04/18/2014 9:30:53 AM PDT by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Kenny Bunk; Tennessee Nana; MeganC; NVDave

ping


2 posted on 04/18/2014 9:32:16 AM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

I will file this under “NS” for “no sh....”


3 posted on 04/18/2014 9:33:21 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

That’s okay with the GOPe, just as long as they continue to get to make sweetheart deals for themselves and their buddies.


4 posted on 04/18/2014 9:33:27 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
duh.......always has been, always will be...the party that gives away the most money and bennies always wins the takers vote....get used to it...

what will be fun to watch is all the libtards getting a nice big fat plate of consequences as the newly minted citizens overrun drs offices, and parks, and zoos and roads and camping areas and water ways.....

5 posted on 04/18/2014 9:34:01 AM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Amnesty Now!

Because America needs to look more like Mexico...Harry Reid doesn’t like the current American populace, and would like a more easily bullied group


6 posted on 04/18/2014 9:34:22 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

7 posted on 04/18/2014 9:35:47 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tulane

Egg-zakly. We needed a study?


8 posted on 04/18/2014 9:36:49 AM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Its slowly sinking in, apparently.


9 posted on 04/18/2014 9:37:25 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Study finds more immigrants equals more Democrats,rape,murder,taxes,job loss..................


10 posted on 04/18/2014 9:38:40 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

That cartoon would be more accurate with the names of almost every single Republican of the last 50 years on it. Only a tiny number of Republicans have been sane on immigration. As this article under discussion explains, LEGAL immigration from the third world is destroying America as much as illegal immigration.

We still have fools around here saying that massive immigration from non-Western countries is okay as long as it’s legal. I hope they read this article thoroughly.


11 posted on 04/18/2014 9:40:05 AM PDT by Monmouth78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

Loook up in the air! its Captain Obvious!!!!

A group of law breakers migrate to the party of law breaking and FREE STUFF. duh!


12 posted on 04/18/2014 9:42:50 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Gimpel cites several reasons why future immigration will likely mean more Democrats. The first is that “immigrants, particularly Hispanics and Asians, have policy preferences when it comes to the size and scope of government that are more closely aligned with progressives than with conservatives.” Those preferences have expressed themselves in a two-to-one party identification advantage for Democrats in those groups.

Another reason is that the arrival of immigrants, whose ranks include substantial numbers of the poor and unskilled, increases income inequality in the areas they choose to live. “It is from areas of higher income inequality,” writes Gimpel, “that we find the most support for a robust government with an expansive regulatory and redistributive role in the economy, among all citizens, not just immigrants.” That will likely mean more electoral success for Democrats.

Gimpel found that the partisan impact of immigration “is relatively uniform throughout the country — from California to Texas to Florida.” If immigrants arrive in large numbers, areas that are already Democratic become more so, while areas that are Republican become more Democratic. That applies to Texas and other red-state strongholds as much as anywhere else.


13 posted on 04/18/2014 9:45:44 AM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monmouth78
We still have fools around here saying that massive immigration from non-Western countries is okay as long as it’s legal.

Nobody wants to look "racist" or "xenophobic." It's time to stop worrying about being called names and speak the truth about the destruction of our country.

14 posted on 04/18/2014 9:51:20 AM PDT by Nea Wood (When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.-Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

A stunning report from Captain Obvious. The Democrat Party has long understood that in order to retain power, they had to import their voters. The lies and ponzi schemes will only work for so long.

Motor Voter laws, championing illegal immigration, undermining border security laws and policy, attacks on voter fraud measures are all essential to the survival of the Democrat Party and a very real threat to the viability of conservative government.

Not surprisingly, the Republican reaction to all of this has been to help the Democrat scheme succeed.


15 posted on 04/18/2014 9:55:03 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
This is how CA went from a swing state to indelible, permanent blue in the space of twenty five years.

I'm surprised the amnesty boosters within the GOPe manage to dress themselves, let alone find their way to Capitol Hill each day, as stupid as they apparently are.

16 posted on 04/18/2014 9:55:06 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Pelosi’s public statment that she’d be willing to remain in the minority in 2016 if it meant passing amnesty tells anyone all they need to know about immigration “reform”.


17 posted on 04/18/2014 9:56:14 AM PDT by Obadiah (I like Krabby Patties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

It’s not immigration that’s the problem - it’s switching our immigration policies to favor third world nations that’s the problem. We no longer choose immigrants who will contribute to the economy, who we know will not be a burden, who we know have jobs waiting for them.


18 posted on 04/18/2014 9:56:20 AM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Nice article stating the obvious,but not one mention of how this came about,The Lion of the Senate and Democrats in the 1965 Immigration Reform Act,Google it ,read the floor speeches and see the arguments the Republicans made against it,then read the responses from the Democrats,it will all sound familiar.
The main point though is what that bill did,notice in Byron Yorks article there was not a mention of European immigrants? That was because of what the bill did,it changed the quotas of where the majority of immigrants would come from,the majority would come from South America,Africa and Asia.
Knowing that is it any surprise we are where we are at?
Not Hardly,Old Teddy did his job well,50 years later White Europeans are about to be in the minority,thanks to the DEMOCRAT PARTY.
Read the arguments against this change and see who was right about the effects it would have,the Republicans were right,people who have no idea about our culture,language and liberty will outnumber us all at the voting booth,its over folks


19 posted on 04/18/2014 9:56:23 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Nice article stating the obvious,but not one mention of how this came about,The Lion of the Senate and Democrats in the 1965 Immigration Reform Act,Google it ,read the floor speeches and see the arguments the Republicans made against it,then read the responses from the Democrats,it will all sound familiar.
The main point though is what that bill did,notice in Byron Yorks article there was not a mention of European immigrants? That was because of what the bill did,it changed the quotas of where the majority of immigrants would come from,the majority would come from South America,Africa and Asia.
Knowing that is it any surprise we are where we are at?
Not Hardly,Old Teddy did his job well,50 years later White Europeans are about to be in the minority,thanks to the DEOMOCRAT PARTY.
Read the arguments against this change and see who was right about the effects it would have,the Republicans were right,people who have no idea about our culture,language and liberty will outnumber us all at the voting booth,its over folks


20 posted on 04/18/2014 9:57:24 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

In other news, water is wet!


21 posted on 04/18/2014 10:01:48 AM PDT by thorvaldr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nea Wood

The ridiculous thing is that we were having the exact same debate back in the early 1990’s, when the situation was nowhere near as bad and even California was still a Red leaning state.

Conservatives had a choice to follow Pat Buchanan and sane policies on immigration, the economy and foreign affairs, but most conservatives made the wrong choice and supported the Bushes, Jack Kemp, John McCain, Newt Gingrich and other open borders maniacs(who also had disastrous positions on other issues).

That’s what brought us to where we are today, folks.


22 posted on 04/18/2014 10:09:56 AM PDT by Monmouth78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

The Catholic bishops in this country—the most vocal ones—are working with the Democrats to destroy the Republican Party and the pro-life movement.

Cardinal O’Malley and Archbishop Gomez have long histories of palling around with pro-abortion politicians—celebrating special Masses for them to “pray” for immigration “reform,” etc. It is becoming clearer and clearer that they are CONSCIOUSLY working to swamp the pro-life movement and other conservative causes with masses of immigrants.


23 posted on 04/18/2014 10:10:20 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Sheesh, it took’m this long to come to that conclusion?

America, your immigration policy has made you a goner.

Saw a pretty young woman and baby on the Walmart parking lot on Westheimer carrying a sign that she and the child were hungry. Upon asking where she was from, she said that she was from Romania and that was the extent of her English.

Who was it who said that after 2016, the Republican Party will become superfluous? Hell, after 2030, both the stupid and the nasty party will be outlawed by sharia.


24 posted on 04/18/2014 10:28:09 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ballplayer

From unionizing government, to Vietnam, to the 1965 Immigration Act, JFK was the end of us.

“However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy. Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Boston’s WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s. In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedy’s blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960. In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin. After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFK’s legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, “I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies.” Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.”


25 posted on 04/18/2014 10:28:58 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ballplayer

agree good post


26 posted on 04/18/2014 10:59:51 AM PDT by Democrat_media (Obama ordered IRS to rig 2012 election and must resign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Democrat_media

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BORDER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=klfmFUcBy5w


27 posted on 04/18/2014 11:19:06 AM PDT by Dqban22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3144733/posts


28 posted on 04/18/2014 11:19:41 AM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Boehner and other GOP members’ support for amnesty may seem odd in light of the fatal consequences for the GOP, however, when you realize their support is based on personal enrichment, it makes sense. They don’t care about the GOP nor do they even care for working Americans and the American Constitution. They see personal wealth that exceeds anything they could otherwise obtain. Simple, really. It is the same thing that powered such prominent GOP members as Arlen Specter. He cared nothing about the GOP nor the citizens of Penn or the US. He cared about Arlen. McCain is another case in point.


29 posted on 04/18/2014 11:48:39 AM PDT by iacovatx (Conservatism is the political center--it is not "right" of center)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

“I’m surprised the amnesty boosters within the GOPe manage to dress themselves, let alone find their way to Capitol Hill each day, as stupid as they apparently are. “

Couldn’t have said it better.


30 posted on 04/18/2014 12:21:07 PM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pelham; Tulane
I will file this under “NS”

Moi aussi.

31 posted on 04/18/2014 4:44:26 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk ( The Republican Party is very sick . Hold all contributions until we see who picks up the patient..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

Bingo.

Another reason why I don’t buy the “Catholics are natural conservatives” argument.

They’re not. They never have been. Hasn’t mattered which wave of Catholic immigration is swamping the country - Italians, Irish, whatever.

Catholic doctrine is not conservative. Oh, they *pretend* to be conservative, but a look at any country where the clear majority of their population are Catholic shows that it is just not seen in the evidence.


32 posted on 04/18/2014 5:57:42 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

So more immigrants, legal or not, mean MORE DEMOCRATS.

So the LOGICAL QUESTION is why can’t the Republican Leaders in the House figure that out?

The answer is that they hire a bunch of gay pollsters, who literally HATE THEM. They set up their polls and tell Boener and Cantor that the Republican Party MUST support AMNESTY, or they will go away.

But instead of FIRING these pollsters, they actually BELIEVE THEM.


33 posted on 04/18/2014 7:32:52 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Actually, the real teaching of the Church is conservative. Private property, economic liberty, no murdering of babies.

We have pro-abortion, socialist bishops. Dolan, Wuerl, O’Malley, Gomez, and many, many others.

Why do I say they are pro-abortion? Because they insist on giving Communion to pro-abortion “Catholics.” That is a clear signal that they are comfortable with the killing of millions of babies here and around the world.

The Catholic bishops are just bad Catholics. The crap they believe is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.


34 posted on 04/18/2014 8:10:35 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Catholicism as practiced is a form of Christian socialism.


35 posted on 04/18/2014 8:15:05 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

The bishops and cardinals ARE the Catholic Church.

The sophistry you’re peddling is that there is some organ called “the Church” which is perfect, without sin and blameless.

This is a part of Catholic dogma.

We Protestants, on the other hand, recognize that churches are made up of people, and since humans are fallible, therefore churches can be, and are, fallible too.

The Catholic Church isn’t teaching anything by itself. The “teaching” of the Catholic Church is carried out by men in church offices, both high and low. If the ranking members of the Catholic hierarchy are preaching “X”, then the real teaching of the Church is “X,” because there is no other message being communicated other than “X.”


36 posted on 04/18/2014 8:17:37 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Exactly.

And when you have socialism, with or without the Christianity, you will have social non-conservatism that follows.

When there are no harsh financial repercussions for being lazy, getting pregnant out of wedlock, etc... guess what you’re going to get?

And as a bonus, we too will have an economy like the basket case countries of Italy, Spain, and the South American countries that enjoy Catholic hegemony over their political systems.


37 posted on 04/18/2014 8:21:02 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

The teaching of the Catholic Church is contained in teaching documents issued by Popes and Ecumenical Councils.

The bishops of the Church are part of the Church; they are not “the Church.”

Currently, the vast majority of the bishops in the U.S. are faithless, stupid, cowardly, and corrupt. They teach a multitude of their personal, political opinions under the pretense that these things are the teaching of the Church.

But to get to your main claim: the “teaching of the Church” I mentioned is not imaginary. The teaching documents I referred to are public documents, accessible to all. They are all on the internet, as is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


38 posted on 04/18/2014 9:17:02 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
We Protestants, on the other hand, recognize that churches are made up of people, and since humans are fallible, therefore churches can be, and are, fallible too.

"Infallible" does not mean blameless or without sin. It means "protected from teaching error."

If you believe that the church you belong to is capable of teaching error, then it cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ, because He promised that His Church would teach the truth He taught.

39 posted on 04/18/2014 10:10:05 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

I learned a lot about Catholicism here in Chicago as I watched the priest homosexual molestation scandal unfold. Over and over again, Cardinal Bernadine turned a blind eye or accepted the most ludicrous excuses and let obvious pedophiles stay or moved them discretely.

It comes from their misplaced view of repentance. Confession and penance remit your sins and they let these guys get away with it. Bad doctrine leads to bad outcomes.


40 posted on 04/19/2014 5:15:00 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

A simple reading of history tells us that the Roman Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus - it was founded by Peter, in whom Jesus trusted the building of his church.

Peter was just a man, and therefore, was fallible. The church was and is staffed with mere mortal men, who are fallible. If Jesus was the one who chose the texts and letters that became the Old & New Testament, and if Jesus had been the person to lay down canon law, and if he were still running the outfit, then it would be infallible.

In no twisted interpretation of Scripture do I believe that Christ would have founded a church that promoted the likes of Pope Alexander VI to be the head of the church... or that would shelter so many pedophiles as we’ve seen recently.


41 posted on 04/21/2014 8:33:49 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

“Infallible” does not mean “sinless.”

What is the name of the church you have found that has no sinners in it?


42 posted on 04/21/2014 9:54:04 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Cardinal Bernardin was a notorious homosexual, and probably an actual satanist. His crimes have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Catholic Church’s teaching about the Sacrament of Penance and the forgiveness of sins.


43 posted on 04/21/2014 9:55:27 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

“Infallible” means “incapable of error.”

A “sin” is a violation of moral or religious law, which would be an error in that the commission of a sin required either ignorance or apathy in adhering to the law, both of which are errors.

So yes,being infallible would tend to lead one to believing that the church is without sin. And since the church defines (for themselves) what canon law is, hey, it isn’t as tho they can claim ignorance of their own law.


44 posted on 04/22/2014 9:22:23 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

“Infallible” does not mean, and does not imply “without sin.” “Impeccable” means “without sin.” The Catholic Church does not claim impeccability.

If you are going to make up your own definitions of words, you can “win” any argument. “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

You are not an honest debater. You are an anti-Catholic bigot.


45 posted on 04/23/2014 4:45:04 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Isn’t the presumption that Jesus didn’t build his Church on Peter, a mere man as you state, but on continuing revelation from Jesus to his appointed leader? That the Rock is revelation, i.e. the direct word of God?


46 posted on 04/23/2014 7:49:29 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

BTW: The Code of Canon Law is a public document. It has a long, long history, and interpretations are all a matter of public record. No one pulls these interpretations out of a hat.


47 posted on 04/23/2014 12:31:02 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
But...but...but...all those "honest" Republican politicians like Rubio, Boehner, McCain, the Bushes, McConnell, etc. absolutely assure us that all those Third World immigrants are "natural conservatives" and "Republicans who don't know it yet", just champing at the bit to vote for smaller government and fiscal responsibility if only we'd loosen our already virtually non-existent restrictions on who can come into this country.
48 posted on 04/23/2014 2:44:00 PM PDT by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson