Sorry GOP, There's Just One Problem With Your Huge Census Victory

Business Insider ^ | 12/21/2010 | Joe Weisenthal

[SeekAndFind]

Yes, more and more of the American population now lives in red states, and that will benefit the GOP in Congress and Presidential elections.

But while the map is getting redder, the red states themselves may are getting bluer, especially Texas, which was the huge winner with a net pickup of 4 seats.

This chart is from the state of Texas. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where the population growth has come from, and where it's going (hint: the growth is not coming from the GOP Anglo base). Note that if we're just talking white population, Texas has barely grown at all (and to the extent it has, it's been in Democrat-friendly cities like Dallas and Austin).

Other states are also shifting for similar reasons. They're not as big, but then the Congressional gains aren't nearly as dramatic.

[re_nortex]

I’m not at all concerned with the increase in the “hispanic” population - if they’re Americans.

Here in Texas, the problem I perceive is that too many people of Mexican origin that are indeed legal citizens continue to ride the socialist welfare train.

Documentation alone is insufficient to qualify as a fully-assimilated real American. As The Comedian points out (post #55), Yankees moving to Texas often want to make things here like they were "back home" (but I'm not one of them). Likewise, I see a lot of evidence of "Mexican-Americans" who place emphasis on the former and not the latter.

I'll qualify my opinion by noting that a recent business trip to California was something of an eye-opener for me. Here in Texas, I do think there's a glimmer of hope with our Mexican population. As evidenced by the 2010 election, it is possible for those of Mexican heritage to vote the right way. In contrast, I write off most of the Mexicans in California as hopeless. They seem to genuinely hate America and want Aztlan there:

[Lurking Libertarian]

Of course they did. They included slaves and women.

Slavery had already been abolished by the 13th Amendment before the 14th was ratified.

But that doesn’t mean they meant to include foreigners. Perhaps they did, but both in the original and in the 14th, it’s not clear-cut.

The wave of European immigration to the United States began in the 1830s and accelerated after the Civil War; by the time the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, there were already enough Irish immigrants in Boston and New York City to substantially affect the Congressional representation of those cities. If Congress didn't want aliens to be counted, they would have said so.

[Texan Tory]

“In short, I fully assimilated and consider myself a Texan — having made a decision to move here and adopt Texas ways and spurning any Yankee-isms. Yes, I wish I could have been born here but I really had no control over that.”

The fact that you weren’t born in Texas makes you no less of a Texan; this concept was irrefutably demonstrated by Davy Crockett.

[re_nortex]

The fact that you weren’t born in Texas makes you no less of a Texan; this concept was irrefutably demonstrated by Davy Crockett.

Thanks...and it works the other way.

Take that vile cretin Jim Hightower, Marxist ex-Ag Commissioner for example. He was born in Denison but this reprehensible "man" is hardly a Texan. He's to the left of Bwaney Fwank! Hightower is Exhibit A of "...all hat and no cattle":

Ultra Mega Triple BARF!

[lentulusgracchus]

Also, who’s to say sitting here today that Hispanics in Texas will still be voting heavily democratic in 2040? Or even 2020?

Anyone who knows even a little about this demographic. Central and South Americans will give Republicans a split for the most part, and Cubans vote GOP. Puerto Ricans vote Democratic, but it's the Mexicans who are the problem, since it's to them that the Democratic Party particularly wants to open the borders for unlimited immigration in the millions. There are already more than 30 million here, counting their kids and the pre-1986 amnesty arrivals and their kids. They vote leftist, they're ethnocentric, they follow their "community leaders" very persistently, and they're very conservative (as in, "unwilling to change") in their voting habits. They're a lock to vote 70-75% Democratic for three or four generations. That's just how they are; it's part of their culture.

That's why Lyndon Johnson wanted them to flood Texas after he passed the 1964 and 1965 civil-rights bills. Even in 1954, he wanted the braceros to settle permanently so he could get them into the voting booth; but President Eisenhower worked around LBJ and used an executive order to make sure the braceros (who were a wartime labor-shortage fix) went home.

LBJ knew Texas would bolt the Democratic Party, so he laid plans to betray his neighbors by burying them in Mexicans who'd negate their votes.

It was the same game the Republicans played with the freedman vote after the Civil War.

It's bare-knuckle politics, when you deliver citizens into the hands of people who hate and despise them, to make them powerless, rightless unpersons.

[x]

When they become Protestant, they also become conservative, and vote Republican.

Possibly because they become evangelical or pentacostal Protestants and those who make the converts have been conservative. Whether it will stay like that remains to be seen. Mainstream Protestants and younger Evangelicals don't always stay with the Republicans, and that may be true of the children of Hispanic converts to Protestantism as well.

[The Comedian]

You may not have been born in Texas, but you got here as fast as you could...

Welcome!

I do genuinely encourage all patriots trapped behind enemy lines in blue states to get to Texas ASAP.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Joe 6-pack]

"Yankees moving to God's country because they've so fouled their own liberal nest states."

I don't think that entirely captures the dynamic. You have conservative yankees that make a conscious decision to move south to be with people who are more like them. You also have people who are transferred/relocated because their employers set up shop in more business-friendly states. Certainly, you have some libs that come south because of the hell they've made in the north-east, but I frankly suspect those are a minority.

[newfreep]

If we don’t begin enforcing illegal immigration laws and begin deporting the 30 million illegals, America as we know it is history and it will beome another 3rd world cesspool like Mexico;

[bvw]

THAT is one absolutely RIDICULOUS chart. Lousy and utterly deceptive.

Here's a slightly better one:

Annual Population Percent Change by Race, Gulf Coast Region

See that Hurricane Katrina spike? It is absent from the deceptively smoothed chart. Also NO WAY is Hispanic population going to increase at that rate in the face of a major recession. Note that the whole Gulf region is seeing a decrease in the rate of growth of Hispanics since 2000, as the economy slowed.

I predict that Hispanic pop in Texas will net out drop over the next four years.

[mc5cents]

Urbanization=liberalization

Exactly. Why do you think they want to get us all out of our SUVs and into electric cars and onto public transit? So we have to live in urban areas to commute to work and such. It has been the plan of statists for a long time.

[ansel12]

It is because they become Protestant, and the Protestant vote is, and always has been Republican.

The only time Protestants voted Democrat was in 1932, 1936, and 1964.

Hispanics becoming Protestant will solve the voting issue.

[Terry Mross]

Chris Bell is a professional campaign loser.

But I do have to wonder “who” is moving to these red states? Are they conservatives who are fed up or are they liberals who vote the opposite of what they believe.

[re_nortex]

It is because they [Hispanics] become Protestant, and the Protestant vote is, and always has been Republican. The only time Protestants voted Democrat was in 1932, 1936, and 1964.

Hispanics becoming Protestant will solve the voting issue.

As a church of Christ member, we're small in numbers but solidly Conservative. As I mentioned in a posting from last winter, I took a vacation (by car) during the 2008 primary season. That gave me the chance to visit a number of coC congregations. I saw not a single Obama sticker on any car in the church parking lots (Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois and Kentucky is where I traveled).

That anecdotal observation aside, what do you think is the underlying cause behind the undeniable figures you mention here and have posted in chart form in other threads?

Do Republicans gravitate toward the Protestant side of the aisle or does the Protestant belief system (work ethic, strong sense of individual -- not corporate -- salvation) install a more Conservative political worldview?

[Terry Mross]

Eventually the white liberal democrats will be replaced by the Hispanic liberal democrats. Then the white liberal democrat will regret all those “votes for effect”. I doubt I’ll live to see it and for that I’m grateful.

[Baynative]

It looks like all the changes will be productive. Especially the fact that traditionally blue states are losing seats, red states are gaining seats and the only blue state (WA) to gain just might pick up a new red district with the debate being controlled by republicans.
(Let's hope Scott Brown is not part of the debate)

2010 Election map

[lone star annie]

They are socially conservative but love redistribution of wealth. In their respective native countries they are powerless in this regard, but in USA they can vote all the freebees they can get.

[lone star annie]

LOL and don’t forget the ravishing and soft spoken lovely duo of Madeline Murray O’Hare and her beautiful sidekick Molly Ivans.

[re_nortex]

LOL and don’t forget the ravishing and soft spoken lovely duo of Madeline Murray O’Hare and her beautiful sidekick Molly Ivans.

Yech! You could make a fortune selling barf bags today to me! :-)

[FredZarguna]

I'm not going to do your research for you. Do it yourself, and learn something.

The SCOTUS did not rule that diplomats were not subject to the laws of the United States because of "diplomatic immunity" please actually read the decision.

SCOTUS has NEVER directly ruled on whether illegals are covered by Amendment XIV.

The whole persons discussed in the 14th Amendment were women, children, assessed Indians and other non-voters and this point was made clear in the debate over passage of the Amendment. Again: look it up. It's publicly available.

I thought we had Constitutionalists at FR who believed in original intent, not some idiocy the ACLU wants to pretend is part of the document through tortured logic and sophistry. There is no precedent for considering illegals as part of the enumeration of the Census. Like the slave power of the nineteenth century, it's another gimmick to give more political power to the slave masters. Conservatives -- and actual libertarians (not liberals who just want to be able to smoke dope legally) -- who're interested in the rule of law shouldn't take advocacy positions on behalf of the lawless. Neither should they supply millions more willing voters to the statists.

Here is the context of the 14th Amendment: it is a point-by-point answer to the preposterous definition of American citizenship claimed by Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. It is nothing more or less. In the debate over the 14th Amendment, proponents specifically denied that it could be applied to refugees, migrants, tourists, business visitors or other foreign nationals.

You want to live in a fantasyland where the Founders and post Civil War Republicans envisioned the United States allowing millions of foreign nationals to settle in the country and claim all the rights of Americans, go right ahead. But don't claim the Constitution as written or as Amended at the time supports your decision. It doesn't. Peddle your liberal crap elsewhere. If twelve million Mexicans had invaded the United States in 1867 they wouldn't have lived long enough to be counted in a Census. Those who managed to survive by going into hiding wouldn't have been marked down as "whole persons" by any Federal employee. We got where we are because our fore-bearers didn't have their heads up their @sses with respect to national sovereignty like the open borders liberals and "libertarians" do.