Posted on 11/21/2004 7:31:49 AM PST by nypokerface
On the day President Bush tapped Alberto Gonzales to be the next attorney general, Gonzales, the son of Mexican immigrants, came to the White House, faced the press and said: "Just give me a chance to prove myself. That is a common prayer in my community."
This prayer is a near-perfect formulation of the GOP's new message to Hispanic-Americans, now the country's largest ethnic group. It mixes Reagan-style rugged individualism (give me a chance to prove myself) with old-school FDR ethnic appeal (the "my community" part). And, unlike so many other prayers, this one evidently works. When he is approved by the Senate, Gonzales will become the highest Mexican-American federal official in memory.
This is not accidental. Republicans got somewhere between 39% and 44% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, depending on who's counting. Even the low figure represents a large improvement over the GOP's usual showing. It doesn't take a pollster to tell you that Hispanics - and especially Mexican-American Hispanics - are now up for grabs.
The Democrats have an offer on the table: Hispanics can be the brown hue in their Rainbow Coalition. As such, they will be eligible for all the affirmative action, government entitlements and political support that are conferred upon aggrieved communities.
The Republicans have a different offer: first-class citizenship. The GOP can't say this out loud, of course, but in return for support, it is willing to transform Hispanics from "people of color" into white Americans.
Some Hispanics, particularly in big northern cities, will reject this Republican bargain out of hand. Many see themselves as Democrats, intimately connected to the African-American community and other marginalized groups by ties of economic and class interest.
But out in the country, especially in Red State America, a great many Hispanics don't regard themselves that way at all. In the 2000 census, roughly half of all Hispanics (and more than half of Mexican-Americans) identified themselves racially as white. Many others left the space for racial self-identification blank.
These are the people the GOP wants to reach with a message that is less economic than social: Latinos - who are already joining evangelical Protestant churches in huge numbers - will be welcome in the pews, schools, barracks and workplaces of Republican America (meaning white America; according to preliminary data, Bush carried nearly 60% of white voters). Hispanics' patriotism and religiosity will be respected, their immigrant work ethic admired. In Bush parlance, Mexican-Americans are "willing employees," not oppressed masses - folks who can raise themselves up by their bootstraps.
Bush's liberalized Mexican immigration policy is designed to make this point. His second-term appointments will, too.
The President almost certainly will nominate Miguel Estrada for the Supreme Court. Like Gonzales, he is a social conservative from a humble immigrant background. A role model. Living proof that you can make it if you try.
It is by no means certain that the GOP can actually close the deal with the Hispanic vote. The unions will fight back, and so will progressive Hispanic interest groups.
But Hispanics, like other immigrants, do not want to remain outsiders forever. They hope to join the mainstream and, in the words of Alberto Gonzales, make something of themselves. The key to that is acceptance in and by the American mainstream.
That is what Bush is now offering. He knows (and so does his brother Jeb) that within a few years Hispanics will make up almost 20% of the population - enough to determine elections. If the Democrats hope to remain a competitive national party, they will have to make these voters a counteroffer better than certified victimhood.
I thought the low-end of the range Bush was reported to have won this time among Hispanics was the low 30s.
OLE...'
America was built through immigration and many cultural groups have contributed to its success. If these people want to care about their communities, start buinesses, take care of one another and try and respect family values, then let's welcome them to our party.
The democrats can have the ones who want a free ride and government to be their daddy.
Coming to a town near you sooner than you think.......
Monday August 16 8:14 AM ET
Texas Town Adopts Spanish As Official Language
EL CENIZO, Texas (Reuters) - The border town of El Cenizo, whose population is heavily Hispanic, has adopted Spanish as its official language and declared the community a safe haven for illegal immigrants, officials said Friday.
The ramshackle town of 7,800 people is located just south of Laredo, Texas, across the Rio Grande River from Mexico.
………
But Linda Evans, a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. George W. Bush, said his office has contacted "relevant state and federal authorities to ensure that the laws, including illegal immigration laws, are being enforced.''
…………
"As a general rule, (uh, how about the law) Governor Bush believes that government business in America should be conducted in English,'' Evans said.
………
The group's executive director, Jim Boulet, said El Cenizo may be the first U.S. town to have adopted Spanish as its official language -- a step that policy makers should take as a ''warning sign'' of things to come.
"Will we call this town 'America's first Quebec?''' asked Boulet, referring to the French-speaking Canadian province. ''Language divisions rather quickly lead to other divisions.''
Bush to Putin:
"The difference between you and me is that I make this look good."
The media chimed in with a report from an Hispanic special-interest lobby. But the report only polled Hispanics from certain states. My guess is this article extrapolated that report to other states. The amazing thing was that many articles suggested that report said his share of the Hispanic vote went down, since it showed a poorer showing (31%) than the 2000 exit poll (35%). What they did not report was the 31% was up from 22% by the same outfit in 2000. Truly, that is more significant than moving from 35% to 44%!
Totalization: Sellout of American Workers
by Phyllis Schlafly
Nov. 17, 2004
The Democrats are trying to make a campaign issue out of George W. Bush's alleged plan to "privatize" Social Security, scaring seniors into thinking their checks will be cut off. That is a phony issue; all Bush suggests is to offer younger workers the option (not the compulsion) of transferring a very small part of their Social Security benefit into private investments.
The real threat to Social Security doesn't come from giving young people this opportunity. The threat comes from the Bush Administration's plan to load illegal aliens into the Social Security system, an idea that would skyrocket costs and bankrupt the system at the same time that baby boomers flood into their benefit years.
The code word for this racket is "totalization." The United States has totalization agreements with 20 other countries, which have been reasonable and non-controversial, but totalization with Mexico is TOTALLY different.
The idea behind totalization with other countries is to assure a pension to those few individuals who work legally in two countries by "totalizing" their payments into the pension systems of both countries. All existing totalization agreements are with developed nations whose retirement benefits are on a parity with U.S. benefits, and the affected employees work for companies that have been paying taxes into the other countries' retirement systems.
Workers from the other 20 countries come with documents from their employer verifying that they are authorized to work in the United States. Only a minuscule fraction of Mexicans enter with such documents.
The legitimate goal of totalization with other countries is to avoid double taxation for retirement when employers assign their employees to work temporarily in another country. Reciprocity works because there is rough parity between the number of U.S. workers in the 20 other countries and the foreigners from those countries who work in the United States.
But this goal has no relevance to Mexico. There is no parity whatsoever between the number of Mexicans working in the United States and the number of U.S. citizens working in Mexico, and absolutely no parity in the social security systems of the two countries.
Mexican benefits are not remotely equal to U.S. benefits. Americans receive benefits after working for 10 years, but Mexicans have to work 24 years before receiving any benefits.
Mexican workers receive back in retirement only what they actually paid in, plus interest, whereas the U.S. Social Security system is skewed to give lower-wage earners benefits greatly in excess of what they and their employers contributed.
Mexico has two different retirement programs, one for public-sector employees, which is draining the national treasury, and one for private-sector workers, which is estimated to cover only 40 percent of the workforce. The rest of the workers are in the off-the-record economy (euphemistically called the "informal" sector).
The 10 million Mexicans who have illegally entered the United States previously lived in poverty, did not pay social security taxes in Mexico, and did not work for employers who paid taxes into a retirement plan. If they were working at all, it was in the off-the-record economy.
Illegality is no issue with the countries where we have existing totalization agreements because none of them accounts for even one percent of the U.S illegal population. On the other hand, Mexico provides more than two-thirds of the illegals in the United States.
The Bush totalization plan would pay out billions in Social Security benefits to Mexicans for work they did in the U.S. using fraudulent Social Security numbers, something that Americans would go to jail for doing. It would pay Social Security Disability benefits to Mexicans who worked in the United States as little as 3 years.
The Bush totalization plan would lure even more Mexicans into the United States illegally in the hope of amnesty and eligibility for Social Security benefits. The Bush plan would even cover the Mexicans' spouses and dependents who may never have lived in the United States.
Since few if any of the illegal aliens have built up any equity in the Mexican retirement system, what is there to totalize? Totalization is a plan for the U.S. taxpayers to end up assuming the entire burden.
When George W. Bush became President in 2001, the Mexican government expected the United States to pass amnesty (disguised as a guest worker plan and "regularizing" the entry of Mexicans). After 9/11, Mexico's national policy turned to increasing the number of its nationals working in the United States and getting them to qualify for all the social benefits and privileges Americans receive, from driver's licenses to Social Security and Social Security Disability.
The Social Security commissioners of both Mexico and the Bush Administration signed a totalization agreement in June of 2004, but the text of the agreement has been kept secret. Maybe we will be permitted to see it after the President approves it and sends it to Congress.
Let your Members of Congress know you want them to stop this billion-dollar sellout of American workers and taxpayers.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/nov04/04-11-17.html
******
A recent FR Poll:
Free Republic Opinion Poll: Do you approve of the plan to let some of the eight million illegal aliens in the United States move toward legal status without penalty -- but with social security benefits?
Composite Opinion
No 85.2% 1,400
Yes 8.8% 145
Undecided 6.0% 98
100.0% 1,643
Great quote from am ethnically French man, Jim Boulet.
Get your state to pass an amendment making English the official language. If not, stop complaining.
Yeah, the finding of that Institute didn't really strike me as being right either.
For the record, I do believe that Bush did boost his share among Hispanics, as he did with pretty much all demographics, but I don't think it was to the tune of 44%. Its been reported that even Bush's people don't think it was that high. Still, I thought he would experience no gain, so any gain is a pleasant surprise to me.
An increase is an increase, and I'm glad it happened. Though it should be said that IF current trends persist (unending mass immigration plus the various birthrates of the various ethnic groups), then it could come to a point where the absolute increase in population among Hispanics drowns out the relative increases by the GOP with that group to the point where the Dem advantage actually increases despite losing ground on a percentage basis.
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.