Skip to comments.Immigrants and the GOP-Debunking some talk radio myths
Posted on 11/14/2012 4:43:35 AM PST by TurboZamboni
The GOP's Presidential election defeat is opening up a debate in the party, with more than a few voices saying they are willing to rethink their views on immigration. This is good news, which means it's also a good moment to address some of the frequent claims from the anti-immigration right that simply aren't true, especially about Hispanics.
One myth is that Latino voters simply aren't worth pursuing because they're automatic Democrats. Yet Ronald Reagan was so eager to welcome Latinos to the GOP that he described them as "Republicans who don't know it yet."
Recall that between 1996 and 2004 the GOP doubled its percentage of the Hispanic vote to more that 40%, culminating in the re-election of George W. Bush, who won Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevadastates with fast-growing Hispanic populations that Mitt Romney lost. The notion that Hispanics are "natural" Democrats and not swing voters is belied by this history.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
well still be bankrupt and going there even faster. its a fact that immigrants, legal AND illegal , use social services at a higher rate than others. we cant even afford to support our born and raised American moocher class, let alone a whole class of poor with anchor babies.
you import more poor(into a welfare state) and you get more poverty.
"Slow path to progress for U.S. immigrants: 43% on welfare after 20 years"
Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion
Nothing but government growth hormones.
“...with more than a few voices saying they are willing to rethink their views on immigration.”
Conservatives aren’t opposed to immigration.
Conservatives are opposed to illegal immigration.
If immigration includes welfare, I’m not in favor of that either.
Look to Milton (Open borders and the welfare state)
In case anyone’s still in doubt as to the ultimate goal of the Amnestinians:
“Opening borders with the redistributionist state still intact will result in a larger and more confiscatory government.”
Grant a little amnesty, then ok a few abortions, give away some free gov iPads, dis God just a little and what have you got? A SECOND DEMOCRAT PARTY. It isn’t just headed that way, it is partially already there.
The WSJ being the WSJ: Pro amnesty for illegal immigrants for cheap labor purposes, and it’s despite all of the problems that are connected with illegal immigration! There’s nothing new here with the WSJ!
Does anyone believe the coming amnesty, open borders and fast track to citizenship will be great for the Republican Party and conservatism? Can Republicans convince all these new Americans that we can give them more goodies than Democrats? We have a perfect example of where our immigration policies are taking us, and of which politics will rule as a result of those policies, ...California.
Name one state where large increases in the Hispanic population has bolstered Republican and conservative numbers and advantage. It doesn’t matter what kind of game we talk or how much we give up to appease illegals. Be it 70/30 or 60/40, losing ground is losing ground.
Sure, and we can reduce all crimes by simply making the crime no longer a crime, or just giving a much higher number of folks what they want so the don't have to commit a crime to get it. Just have a day per week where anyone can get anything they want from a retail store without paying. That'll probably eliminate shoplifting and all sorts of theft.
And if the WSJ wanted to provide some useful data about how illegals would vote, they could survey Latinos who are established and whose families have been in the US for many years, and then survey those recent arrivals and those who are first and second generation.
I think you'll find some very diffent party preferences between recent arrivals and established families, and that any amnestied illegals would go 80%+ for the Dims.
The WSJ is not an objective voice on this issue, but a tool of businesess who want a continuous supply of cheap labor.
What an incredibly bad editorial. For the WSJ to write something so illogical it must be duplicity IMO.
Illegal immigrants rely on welfare more than American citizens do—as do their offspring generations later. And a high-water mark for GOP voting is 40%, so that means they are natural Republicans?
Illegal immigrants naturally enter the country most aggressively in times of low employment. In those times, they both suppress wages of the native low-skill workers with whom they compete and retard the technological advance of those industries that most frequently hire them.
Then, when the downturn comes, they unquestionably compete with low-skill citizens for the opportunity to hold any job at all, even though the inflow of illegals also slows for the time and some may even return home.
Hispanic culture teaches that the government exists to reward the winners and punish the losers. Read “the other path” by Hernando de Soto. They oppose corruption until they get into power and then use corruption when they get into power.
I don’t care how much they claim to hate abortion, they love graft and governmental abuse more. What’s worse, our education system teaches them that their system is good and the SEIU gives them the political power to import their ideas to the United States. These are the political LOSERS from their home countries. Unable to implement corruption for themselves in their home countries, they’ve come here to continue their practices.
The ONLY answer is to demonstrate that we are A NATION OF LAWS. If you violate those laws you will pay the consequences. If we do not enforce the laws, they say, “See. Your country is just like ours. The political winners can change or ignore laws. You are no better.”
Read The Other Path and see what happens when the illegal bus drivers take over power. They give amnesty to themselves and then make anyone who dares compete with them suffer the same fate they opposed for themselves.
Thank you...great article. I couldn’t agree more with you/Rector/Friedman.
I’m all for being optimistic, but we have to be constrained by realism. If you are going to tout that Dubya got 40% of the hispanic vote, then you must also note that he lost 60% of it! Therefore, for every 10 hispanic immigrants we admit, even under the best recent conditions, we are ending up with a net loss of 2 votes.
“Ronald Reagan was so eager to welcome Latinos to the GOP that he described them as ‘Republicans who don’t know it yet.’”
And apparently they still don’t know it. Nor will they ever, because they overwhelmingly have big government in their DNA.
How about this quote, not mentioned by the WSJ for some reason: The amnesty was the worst mistake of my presidency.
The WSJ has always pimped for illegals. Business likes the cheap illegal labor, while leaving us dumb taxpayers to pick up the tab for their housing, food stamps, education, illegal and uninsured driving, ad nauseum.
The hell with that crap. And screw the WSJ.
Today’s immigrants for the most part don’t come for ideological reasons. They are not fleeing oppression nor aspiring to the American ideal. Their motives are purely economic.
In such a scenario the party that goes around handing out cash will win everytime.
Doesn't sound like a good deal at all.
Earlier Russian and Ukrainian Jews and Poles were similarly accused of being interested only in money, or import/export.
Keeps going that way until we get back to the English ~ yup, same old thing ~ really.
The only pure ideological immigrants we ever received were the Scots and the Sa'ami! Actually we got about 90% of each type, and then, of coure, there are the Irish, Welsh, Manx, Bretons and Galicians ~ about 90% of them as well ~ but they came for the money I am sure ~ right?
I wonder, did Krauthammer and the rest of the Good Old Panderers pushing for amnesty give their kids a pony every time they stomped their feet and said “I hate you”?