Study finds more immigrants equals more Democrats --- and more losses for GOP

Washington Examiner ^ | April 15, 2014 | Byron York

[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

[NVDave]

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.

[Arthur McGowan]

“Infallible” does not mean “sinless.”

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

[Arthur McGowan]

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.

[NVDave]

“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.

[Arthur McGowan]

“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.

[1010RD]

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?

[Arthur McGowan]

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.

[ek_hornbeck]

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.