It's called "privatizing profits, and socializing the costs."
Posted on 08/19/2007 8:50:09 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Well, sort of. The Republican Party was formed when disgruntled members of the Whigs, Free Soil, Know-Nothings, and anti-slavery Northern Democrats defected and decided to form their own party. The only thing the defecting members of these four parties had in common was they were all anti-slavery people. The creation of the GOP was not a "merger" of those previous parties and didn't abolish them, it just took a significant chunk of their support.
In 1856, the Republican Party ran one ticket (Fremont/Dayton) while the Whigs & Know-Nothing Party ran a different joint ticket (Fillmore/Donolsen). The Republican Party, only two years old, got more votes for President than what was left of the Whigs/Know-Nothings and they went extinct shortly afterwards.
The GOP didn't adopt their familiar plank on immigration (control the borders, deport illegal aliens and make sure legal immigrants fully assimilate before they are granted citizenship) until the 1880s. Of course that still means the GOP has held the limited immigration position for about 125 years.
It sounds to me like you have had this rant tucked away waiting for an opportunity to use it and don’t care much about what you are actually replying to.
I never brought up slavery. As for race, genetically distinct people are known as races, as in the Celtic Race or the Scandinavian Race. As such they were racists in opposing the immigration of the Irish Race. Good thing they never succeeded as the Irish Catholic family that gave us Ronald Reagan would have been shut out.
I’m sorry the only argument you can use against someone who disagrees with is “vacuous and silly.” There is nothing vacuous or silly about my earlier comment. Can I play that game too, using random adjectives? How about if I call your arguments odorous and flammable? Perhaps your arguments are adhesive and frigid.
Go ahead and defend the Know-Nothings, it will vindicate Bill O’Reilly. But please don’t link that group to today’s opposition to criminal illegal immigration where race, religion or nationality have exactly ZERO to do with our concerns now.
Celebrating a Century and a Half of Civil Rights Achievement by the Republican Party
Republicans held our first state convention in Jackson, Michigan on July 6, 1854. That fall, the GOP swept to victory throughout the North. Other anti-slavery Members of Congress joined the party, so that less than two years later, on February 2, 1856, Republicans elected a Republican Speaker of the House. The Republican National Committee first met the next month, to coordinate opposition to the pro-slavery policies of the Democrats, also known then as "slaveocrats."
And that summer, Republicans held our first national convention. There, we nominated our first presidential candidate, the Georgia-born form California Senator John Fremont. Four years later, we won the White House for the "Great Emancipator."
As the nation sacrificed during the Civil War, Republicans planned the most significant amendments ever to our Constitution and enacted - despite fierce opposition from the Democrats - the 13th Amendment to ban slavery, the 14th Amendment to protect all Americans regardless of the color of their skin, and the 15th Amendment to extend voting rights to African-Americans. The Republicans' 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteed equal access to public accommodations without regard to race. Struck down by the Supreme Court in 1883, this law would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
"Every man that wanted the privilege of whipping another man to make him work for nothing, and pay him with lashes on his naked back, was a Democrat. Every man that raised bloodhounds to pursue human beings was a Democrat. Every man that cursed Abraham Lincoln because he issued the Emancipation Proclamation was a Democrat." - Robert Ingersoll, 1876.
For its first 80 years, the Republican Party was the only one to provide a home for Afican-Americans. Until well into the 20th century, every African-American Member of Congress was a Republican. The same was true for nearly all state legislators and other elected officials.
It's called "privatizing profits, and socializing the costs."
Hey, Ryan! My grandfather came through Ellis Island, LEGALLY! His generation would be as opposed to the illegal invasion, and the Quislings in our country today, as I am!
How about the Know Something Party?
Why no. I just found your comment silly considering the actual history. Thought I'd set you straight. Perhaps you've not studied much American political history, I have.
"Genetically distinct" is not a sufficient English label to bring up the word race. But even if it were, you can't use an archaic and quaint term like that to differentiate the Irish from anyone else in Western Europe. Virtually all Western Europeans descend from the group that took refuge in the Iberian Peninsula during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). You can learn about that here: Haplogroup R1b .
To assert that the Know Nothings were racist in opposing the Irish is ridiculous. The Irish are not a "race" in any genetic sense of the word relative to pretty much anybody else in the British Isles or even Northwestern Europe.
They were however nationalist in the political sense, and once again, Catholicism was a political issue (again...you know that, right?), along with English political differences with the Irish nationality.
And as for Mr. Reagan, I guess we could say they redeemed themselves with him, especially considering this other contribution from nationalist Ireland:
What's mostly interesting to me is how much more open and fluid political parties were back then. For instance, I doubt if many people know that Lincoln ran under the National Union Party ticket in 1864, as the Radicals took over the Republican party and looked to run him out.
The entire monolithic nature of political parties now was not at all present then. It was very much a dynamic political scene, and stayed that way until early in the 20th century.
Apprently you really do represent the "Know-Nothings."
bttt
I realize that is the politically correct thing to say, but our failed LEGAL immigration policies are compounded by illegal aliens, most of whom are the uneducated poor of Latin America. It is changing the demographics of this country significantly in a very short period of time
We already have many guest worker programs in the form of various visas such as H1B, H2B, TN Nafta Work visa, L-1 Intra-company Transfer Work visa, Nurse Work visa, O-1 Visa, P Visa, R-1 visa, etc. We have millions of people working here as guest workers under those programs.
We don't need to increase the number of the current one-million legal immigrants we take in annually. We do need to change the existing immigration laws that are not serving us well as a nation. We are taking in more legal immigrants than ever before, just not the ones we need to provide us with the skills and talents required to keep us competitive in the global economy. We don't need to import high school dropouts from Latin America to keep our economy going.
And we are witnessing one of the greatest mass migrations in history, which has changed the demographics and culture of this country in less than 40 years. In 1950, Hispanics comprised 1 percent of the population. Today they are about 15% and by 2050 will be 24.4% per Bureau of the Census projections. What is going on is unprecedented. Little did anyone know that when the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was passed, the demographics would be so significantly affected. Teddy Kennedy said on the effects of the act in 1965, "...our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset...." The act's supporters not only claimed the law would not change America's ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.
Oh, how wrong they were. We are not only taking in 1 million legal immigrants a year [60% from Latin America,] up from 178,000 a year prior to the Act, but the ethnic composition of the US has changed dramatically and will continue to do so at warp speed. The additional 500,000 to 1 million illegal aliens, mostly from Latin America add to this flood of immigrants. In 1965 when the Act was passed, the United States was overwhelmingly composed of whites of European descent (89% in 1965), with the only minority group of significant size being blacks (10%). By 2050 non-hispanic whites will be 50% and declining fast. It is not politically correct to state what is happening in this regard, but the real question is can America retain its national identity and culture or will we become Balkanized along linguistic and cultural lines? Demography is destiny.
No it's not politically correct. Politically correct would be to call us all racists. I for one, don't give a damn what race, religion or nationality people are. This discussion is about enforcing our laws.
The politically correct thing is not to mention the racial/ethnic component of what is happening, legally and illegally. The fact that you state "I for one, don't give a damn what race, religion or nationality people are" is an example of what I meant. You don't want to be labelled a racist by mentioning the ethnic component of the problem. We are not being invaded by millions of Swedes or Irish. It is similar to the political correctness surrounding the identification of who the terrorists really are, i.e., militant Islamic fundamentalists. We must avoid profiling and continue to wand blue-eyed grandmothers.
"No other First World country has such an extensive land frontier with a Third World country. The significance of the long Mexican-U.S. border is enhanced by the economic differences between the two countries. “The income gap between the United States and Mexico,” Stanford University historian David Kennedy has pointed out, “is the largest between any two contiguous countries in the world.” Contiguity enables Mexican immigrants to remain in intimate contact with their families, friends, and home localities in Mexico as no other immigrants have been able to do. "
Have you read the The Hispanic Challenge By Samuel P. Huntington?
I agree that illegal immigration needs to be stopped no matter where it comes from, but where it does come from, primarily from Mexico and Latin America, does matter. And so do our legal immigration policies, which are changing dramatically the demographics of this country. There will be growing political tensions and consequences as this elephant in the room grows and grows.
Two Sides of the Same Coin The Connection Between Legal and Illegal Immigration
We're all appalled at what Mr. Cromwell did, but it doesn't change the fact that there are no significant genetic differences between the people on the island to the West from the people on the island to the East.
Biologically, they're pretty much all the same people.
Prove me wrong.
BUMP! Simple concept, really!
As someone who agreed and just applauded what ElkGroveDan wrote, I must disagree with you. It has nothing to do with race or origin, or what newspaper they read! The same issue would exist if they were Swedes or Chinese or aliens from Mars! It has nothing to do with political correctness or Islamic fundamentalists. They are ILLEGAL, meaning they defied the laws of the United States by entering the country, and many of them continue to do so. No country can financially withstand an onslaught of lawbreakers and underground economy workers in the presence of huge government giveaways. It's about survival of the U.S.A.
i may have questions of F.Thompson but I KNOW I do not like Guiliani’s left wing perspective.
It is just so arrogant.
You must have overlooked what I wrote, i.e.,
I agree that illegal immigration needs to be stopped no matter where it comes from, but where it does come from, primarily from Mexico and Latin America, does matter. And so do our legal immigration policies, which are changing dramatically the demographics of this country. There will be growing political tensions and consequences as this elephant in the room grows and grows.
I don't know if you read the two links I provided in my repsonse, but there is a definite link between illegal and legal immigration. No one is disputing that all illegal immigration is wrong, but you can't discuss this issue without understanding the causes and why the problem exists.
It has nothing to do with political correctness or Islamic fundamentalists.
It does. Legal and illegal immigration are changing the demographics of this country. The two are related. Political correctness prevents a candid discussion of what is happening. Legal immigration is out of control just as much as illegal immigration. We need to fix both. They are two sides of the same coin.
No country can financially withstand an onslaught of lawbreakers and underground economy workers in the presence of huge government giveaways. It's about survival of the U.S.A.
We agree on that point.
I read everything you wrote and don’t believe I overlooked anything. We just disagree on certain things. I also scanned both of the documents at the links you posted.
Here is the thing (IMO): Illegal immigration and legal immigration are two different animals. Sure, they have some interrelated effects, but the two are easily separable in my mind. Those who try to tie the two together are those who believe that the U.S. cannot withstand the impact of enforcing our laws. That’s about as logical as those who would free dangerous criminals because jails are crowded.
The easy issue is illegal immigration. It must stop—Now! Existing laws should be enforced, including a crackdown on businesses who hire illegals as their workforce. Including interior enforcement. Including border control. Including federal withholding of dollars to cities providing sanctuary. The result should be an outflow of aliens back to their native land, or some other country (no longer our problem). By stopping the inflow of illegal aliens, and incentivizing the departure of those already here (Big Stick), we stop the continuation of the anchor baby effect. Overall, we’ve made some progress.
As to legal immigration, I don’t see the structure or laws being a problem. Perhaps their strategy or policies need revising. The issues outlined in the two papers you cited should be genuine considerations in developing sound domestic LEGAL immigration policy for the long term. Some of those factors should include the ability of the economy to absorb new citizens without harming the existing population (jobs, schools, infrastructure), the speed at which various groups are assimilating, education levels, etc. Instead of sound policy, we have seen the legal process poorly implemented, probably influenced by the overwhelming reality of millions of illegal immigrants. A sound LEGAL immigration policy cannot be effected until ILLEGAL immigration is addressed and stopped.
Now, I don’t know what in the above requires anyone to be particularly P.C. about anything. Perhaps that would come to light in establishing a LEGAL immigration policy. But you alluded several times to the “ethnic” component. I don’t share that concern. In most ways, I have much more in common with folks from Mexico than I do with people from France. I certainly would not like to see immigration quotas disproportionately favoring groups who come from communist countries or others who do not share some of the same values as the United States. I guess I don’t think of that as “ethnic,” so every time someone implies that this all comes down to race, I react. It doesn’t for many of us.
As to immigration changing the demographics—well, yes. It always has and it always will. I guess there are folks who are against any kind of immigration as a result. I’m not one of them and I don’t think ElkGroveDan, or any significant number of freepers fit that category.
I’m going to stop now... I know I didn’t capture all of my thoughts, but you get the idea. I’m tired and I feel like I am rambling.
How can you possibly say that if you read Two Sides of the Same Coin The Connection Between Legal and Illegal Immigration?
I don't know how you come to the conclusion that, Those who try to tie the two together are those who believe that the U.S. cannot withstand the impact of enforcing our laws." That certainly was not my point. I want the laws enforced, but some of the laws need to be changed, e.g., chain migration, the visa lottery program, birthright citizenship [anchor babies], etc.
The easy issue is illegal immigration. It must stop—Now! Existing laws should be enforced, including a crackdown on businesses who hire illegals as their workforce. Including interior enforcement. Including border control. Including federal withholding of dollars to cities providing sanctuary. The result should be an outflow of aliens back to their native land, or some other country (no longer our problem). By stopping the inflow of illegal aliens, and incentivizing the departure of those already here (Big Stick), we stop the continuation of the anchor baby effect. Overall, we’ve made some progress.
You are preaching to the choir. I am part of a grassroots immigration reform group that has been lobbying Congress on almost a daily basis. Congress is gearing up in September to again trot out comprehensive immigration reform. They are still trying to get it passed piecemeal or in its entirety. The Dream Act is being appended the Defense appropriations bill.
As to legal immigration, I don’t see the structure or laws being a problem. Perhaps their strategy or policies need revising. The issues outlined in the two papers you cited should be genuine considerations in developing sound domestic LEGAL immigration policy for the long term.
We are taking in over 1 million legal immigrants a year, 60% of whom come from Latin America. Prior to 1965, we were averaging 178,000 a year. The numbers will continue to mushroom due to chain migration and the lack of caps on various categories. The demographics of this country are being changed dramatically. Our current LEGAL immigration policies are more dangerous to our future as a nation than illegal immigration and more difficult to solve.
Some of those factors should include the ability of the economy to absorb new citizens without harming the existing population (jobs, schools, infrastructure), the speed at which various groups are assimilating, education levels, etc. Instead of sound policy, we have seen the legal process poorly implemented, probably influenced by the overwhelming reality of millions of illegal immigrants. A sound LEGAL immigration policy cannot be effected until ILLEGAL immigration is addressed and stopped.
The Dems and Open border types have tried to tie the two together holding border security [including a system to track and deport visa overstays] hostage to comprehensive immigration reform. The two should not be linked. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't move ahead on both fronts. Cong. Gingrey (R-GA) intoduced legislation to eliminate extended chain migration and limit it to the nuclear family. There is no reason why we can't eliminate the visa lottery program, which brings in 50,000 immigrants annually. The top priority is securing the border and enforcing the laws on the books, but we can't wait three or four years to address the problems associated with legal immigration policies.
Now, I don’t know what in the above requires anyone to be particularly P.C. about anything. Perhaps that would come to light in establishing a LEGAL immigration policy. But you alluded several times to the “ethnic” component. I don’t share that concern. In most ways, I have much more in common with folks from Mexico than I do with people from France. I certainly would not like to see immigration quotas disproportionately favoring groups who come from communist countries or others who do not share some of the same values as the United States. I guess I don’t think of that as “ethnic,” so every time someone implies that this all comes down to race, I react. It doesn’t for many of us.
Read the The Hispanic Challenge By Hargvard Historian Samuel P. Huntington and we can discuss it.
As to immigration changing the demographics—well, yes. It always has and it always will. I guess there are folks who are against any kind of immigration as a result. I’m not one of them and I don’t think ElkGroveDan, or any significant number of freepers fit that category.
Here we go with being against immigration because you are against illegal immigration and want to change legal immigration policies. I am not against immigration. My wife is an immigrant. My grandmother was an immigrant. I have lived 25 years of my adult life abroad in nine different countries. I am not a xenophobe or a racist. The point is that we can't continue to take in the numbers of people we are and assimilate them. We need to craft an immigration policy that will benefit this nation. The current policies do not.
What is happening now is unprecedented in our history. Your failure to comprehend what is happening is similar to the frog who is put into a pot of cold water that is slowly heated. By the time the pot is boiling, the frog realizes too late what is happening. 1965 was a watershed year in immigration history. We are just beginning to see the consequences. Today, half of the children ages 0-5 are minorities. Hispanics and blacks have the highest high school dropout rates. Demography is destiny.
The dimensions of the Hispanic baby boom are startling. The Hispanic birthrate is twice as high as that of the rest of the American population. That high fertility rate – even more than unbounded levels of immigration – will fuel the rapid Hispanic population boom in the coming decades.
By 2050, the Latino population will have tripled, the Census Bureau projects. One in four Americans will be Hispanic by midcentury, twice the current ratio.
It's the fertility surge among unwed Hispanics that should worry policymakers. Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country – over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly 1 ½ times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003 (the latest year for which data exist), compared with 28 children for unmarried white women, 22 for unmarried Asian women, and 66 for unmarried black women.
Forty-five percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with 24 percent for whites and 15 percent for Asians. Only the percentage for blacks – 68 percent – is higher. But the black population is not going to triple over the next few decades.
People don't want to be labelled racists when they are not! Period! While all sorts of factors may come into a domestic policy on LEGAL immigration, the ILLEGAL immigration problem is about individuals not following the law and our own government failing to enforce those laws. Period. That is all I was trying to say.
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.