Posted on 11/14/2006 6:27:24 AM PST by Dane
Iraq was clearly the election issue that turned the tide against the GOP, but one issue many Republican activists thought might save the day ended up a bust: immigration.
In several high-profile races where illegal immigration was a key issue, the anti-immigrant candidate lost big. In Arizona, the front line in the immigration wars, Republicans J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf lost handily to more moderate voices.
Mr. Hayworth, a six-term congressman, once favored a guest worker program but flip-flopped when he sensed bashing immigrants was a surer ticket to re-election. In his book "Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security and the War on Terror," Mr. Hayworth called for a three-year ban on legal immigration from Mexico, which would devastate the U.S. agricultural community and hurt other industries. Apparently, voters in Arizona's 5th Congressional District wanted no part of Mr. Hayworth's proposed ban.
Mr. Graf, a former state representative and member of the extremist Minuteman Project, was even more off-base. Mr. Graf supported calls to reinstate "Operation Wetback," a 1950s federal deportation program that not only rounded up thousands of illegal aliens but also ensnared some U.S. citizens of Mexican descent. Mr. Graf's position garnered only 42 percent of the vote in a reliably conservative district.
In Colorado, Republicans' anti-immigrant stance may have cost them the governor's race in addition to one congressional seat. Rep. Bob Beauprez, the Republican who gave up his seat to run for governor, claimed illegal immigration would prove to be Democrat Bill Ritter's "Achilles' heel" and spent much of the last few weeks of the campaign hammering away on the issue. But Colorado's agricultural economy depends heavily on immigrant workers (including illegal aliens), and Mr. Ritter's pro-guest worker position helped him win 56 percent of the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
BTW, dennis, I believe that Ms. Chavez has a very long and happy marriage to a Jew, when are you going to condemn her Jewish husband for marrying a "schicksa".
Tim Walberg is a republican. We threw Schwarz out in the primary but he apparently hasn't gotten over it. He never congratulated Walberg and then announced a write in campaign the day before the election.
And just wait until all the Wall-Street Republicans who are pro-amnesty have to start paying the illegal aliens minimum wages !!!
"I understand why you voted for the dem."
I voted for Howard Coble (R), who won in a landslide as he always does. I don't even reside in that district, in other words, just so you're clear on the concept.
"Why are we promoting the registration of millions of Democrat voters?"
Republicans holding themselves out as conservatives can't come right out and say they want amnesty because:
1.) the current batch of illegal aliens are anxious to move out of `entry-level' jobs (meat processing, produce, etc.);
2.) they will require another batch of illegals to take their places; and,
3.) the GOP is beholden to these interest groups;
so they try and placate us with the absurd notion that they are trying to get illegals' votes for the GOP.
More extreme illegal alien enablers, like Dane ("Mrs. Chavez's last name ends with a "z"!) just come right out and label us--conservative Americans concerned that our laws are being broken with impunity, and that we can expect an even larger `wave' of illegals if we repeat the mistake of 1986--as racists. Some one here was stroking Dane last week while calling the rest of us `Storm Fronters'.
So in a sense ClarenceThomasfan is right: the GOP will continue to lose votes, due to this issue, when it could be holding itself out as the "law & order" party and winning.
Linda Chavez....yet another tool for the OBL.
If the Senate version of immigration reform were to pass today, and the illegals were amnestied onto the "path to citizenship", those illegals would be able to vote in the national election of 2020. OTOH, the 7 yo child of the illegal will be voting before the illegal.
The real issue is will the republicans motivate legal hispanics to participate in the political process at a higher rate and will they tilt further towards the dems.
What benefits do you see to current immigration policy (i.e. a policy still largely based on the 1965 Immigration Act) that leads to the legal admission of around 900,000 to 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year (disregarding for a moment that the current law, along with the feds' refusal to enforce it, also likely leads to higher levels of illegal immigration)
Forgetting political advantages or disadvantages to taking or not taking a particular position, how do you see these policies benefitting the American people as a whole?
As I see it, the studies on the economic impact of admitting more than a million immigrants a year are mixed...and seem to depend as much on the perspective of the entity sponsoring the study as the facts and analysis in the study itself. There is, however, no way, to say definitively, that there is an economic benefit
On the social/cultural impact, unless you are an advocate of multiculturalism, I don't see how you can conclude that creating broad ethnic diversity in America is a good thing. Harvard sociologist, Robert Putnam recently published a study on the social impact of diversity, the findings of which seemed to surpise and dismay him.
Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity
Putnam wrote a book exploring why more people than ever in America bowl...yet there are vastly fewer bowling leagues than in years past. Putnam concludes his study (which found that high ethnic diversity in a community leads to loss of trust among the people for each other), with an acknowledgement that this may be a natural human reaction to diversity, but a recommendation that we simply construct a new us". Sort of a bizarre thing to suggest.
Loss of trust among the people, loss of local communities, local support groups, churches and fraternal organizations is a disaster for the American people...these were the sub-societies that made America great...and what made the federal government unnecessary in most aspects of Americans' lives. These organizations provided health insurance, welfare, job assistance, etc....all voluntary...neighbors helping neighbors. The loss of trust and local community is great for the feds...but a tragic loss for the American people
American history has never seen a sustained (over 40 years now) immigration boom like this. And remember, America severely limited immigration in 1924, shortly after the American west closed to further expansion. Simply, 2006 is not 1806...or even 1906...we are not expanding geographically any longer. We do not suffer from labor shortages among low-skilled workers. What may have been good policy for America when your grandfather arrived here does not necessarily make it good policy today
Bottom line is that admission of immigrants is, for all intents and purposes, irreversible. Once people are here, they don't leave. With that in mind, shouldn't the pro-immigrant crowd be forced to make a definitive argument for why admission of so many immigrants every year is still a good policy?
So Dane...what is it that you find so beneficial about mass immigration to America?
"Dane, you don't give a darn about our serious Illegal Immigration problems because it makes your idol, Bush, look bad.
You'd argue the President's point, even if he said the moon was made of Green cheese..
It's so glaringly obvious.."
And a few too many here of the same mindset!
The OBL will not be defeated unless we unite immediately to do so! I vote a Randy Graf type to lead the way in a unification of all the anti-OBL forces across the country and get it done now.... before Bush, Pelosi and Dane have a chance to push through shamnesty under the guise of 'bipartisan cooperation'!
Yes, but there is no doubt that you are an economic populist and would have voted for Shuler.
It is the democrats and their loud mouth enablers on the fringe right, who wish to put up walls between ethnicities and political values, kinda of akin to the old Soviets.(Yuh know the Berlin wall)
Arnold got 44% of the hispanic vote. How did the rest of the GOP do?
Uh Kimberly, I voted against a pelosi House, unlike others on FR, who gave their proxy vote to nancy, by sitting this election out.
So long as Big Business can make an extra buck off the backs of the American worker by employing ILLEGAL slaves, who needs laws...
Arnold got 63% of the white votes compared to the anemic 51% of the national GOP. He won because of that.
I am very good at seeing the future, I watch tends. If amnesty is passed you will never see another conservative president ever unless the nation gets into a real war shortly before a presidential election. Or some other disaster happens. Know I know you are a registered democrat that claims to be conservative. But why are you cheering so loudly for the end of the conservative movement in the USA? Could it be you are really a clever DUer?
Well, that and she employed an illegal which kept her from getting a cabinet post.
it is good to see those who understand 'what is happening here'
He is probably the only republican who can win the presidency in 08
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.