New Immigration Bill; The Death of the Republican Party!
By Steve Foley Posted in Immigration — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As the title reads if this bill passes over the next 8 to 10 years we will see an end to our two party system and the death of the Republican Party.
10 to 30 million new Americans over the next decade, Two-thirds of which will choose the Democrat Party due to entitlements, misinformation, and peer pressure. That’s a drastic redefinition of our country and the utter evaporation of the Republican Party. That is something we just can not allow to happen!
I have no doubt this fact is at the forefront of Senator Kennedy’s (and other liberal's) agenda and why they’re so happy to expedite this bill though.
A fact we all may want to remind our Republican representatives as they weigh their decision.
As Erick and others have said there is no bill yet and we don’t know exactly how the House will react but...
...we should be extremely mindful of the unintended consequences this type of bill would have on America. A one party entitlement government and the collapse of the United States of America as we know it!
Even though I'm not surprised, as the media is hopelessly biased on immigration even more so than on most issues, I am still extremely upset that the press has not put under the microscope the changes to legal immigration this bill would unleash.
One of the reasons I can easily dismiss polls showing support for 'comprehensive' immigration reform is because they are based on misinformation, and a lack of information. Would the public support it if they knew it would unleash a massive increase in already high levels of legal immigration? If they knew that it would increase legal immigration by tens of millions over a few decades, would they still say yes? I think we know the answer to that, and that answer is why the media has disgracefully chosen to keep the American people in the dark.
How do you know two-thirds will choose the Democratic party? My guess is that they'll vote like every other group. Perhaps initially when many are still relatively poor they'll vote Democratic and as they begin to move into the middle class they'll become a split group. Many tend to be socially conservative.
The Reagan amnesty didn't cause the collapse of the country, and this one, which is actually coupled with tougher enforcement policies, won't either.
How do we know? Well, I guess you can't say anything with 100% certainty, but we can be as sure as possible because its as clear as day.
Most Hispanics (and Asians) now vote Democratic by significant margins, and this was true even of 2004 when Bush won perhaps as much as 40% of the latino vote. Now, you say that this will change over time as they move into the middle class, but there are at least two big problems with that line of thought -- (1) Even if its true, with the proposal the already large annual influx of immigrants will be even larger, which means the pro-Democrat dynamics of first and second generation Americans will be contantly resupplied. (2) Large levels of immigration are inherently anti-assimilation. Perpetual mass immigration strengthens pretty much every factor that makes immigrants support Democrats in the first place. The idea that Republicans will ever even break even (outside of a few races) while mass immigrations persists is a fantasy.
All of the talk about the social conservatism of Hispanics is way overblown. Yeah, you can point to specific issues like the definition of marriage, but we don't have direct initiatives at the national level for such matters, which means our black-robed masters will settle this issue for us, and on this count the effect of immigrants is clear because they vote for Democrats to be President, and to be their Senators. Besides, black Americans also hold socially conservative views at rates wildly out of proportion to how they vote for the two parties. The bottom line is that other issues trump social issues.
As to the Reagan amnesty; well, for one thing more people were given amnesty that was estimated in the beginning, so we should probably expect the same here. For another, the nation was still almost 80% white at the time of the Reagan amnesty, which of course was a much kinder demographic situation for Republicans than the one we have now, where that percentage has dropped well below 70. Its a safe bet that of those who got amnesty in the 80s and who then went on to become voting citizens, the majority have voted Democratic, despite the fact that it was a Republican who signed their amnesty into law. The same will happen here.
I mean, seriously, when are pro-unending mass immigration conservatives going to understand? Do they really think that Ted Kennedy would be so eager for this if he wasn't sure of how most of the newcomers will vote?
jamespolk says>"The Reagan amnesty didn't cause the collapse of the country, and this one, which is actually coupled with tougher enforcement policies, won't either."
I beg to differ with you.
Before the 1986 amnesty bill, the southwest and California was at least a 50 50 split between repubs and dems. Even though California has some extremely liberal areas such as San Francisco, the state elected many conservative and moderate governors, two which went on to become presidents. (Reagan and Nixon)
After the 1986 amnesty bill, as well as the complete lack of border enforcement, the demographics of the state changed. Now the hispanic vote is a powerful group, and in California it trends to the left. In Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, we are witnessing the same trends that started in California.
Ask yourself this question....if we are to believe GW Bush when he says illegals come here to escape poverty, and if the democratic party offers those illegals free education, free health care, and union wages, why would they support the republican party ?
Rewarding law breakers is not a good thing, but the US hasn't enforced immigration laws for the past 40 years. Bush hasn't even secured the border after 9/11.
Many people will be outraged at this amnesty plan, but if you stop and think about it, the people are already here. We are not going to deport them all, we are just not. Deporting 12 million illegals would cost billions and industries like agriculture and construction would die.
We have to stop illegal immigration though or just take over Mexico, one or the other.
In order to get reelected, Governor Arnold had to abandon the republican party agenda. The "new" Arnold supports global warming legislation, supports government health care for all citizens, and opposes republican efforts to secure the border. Why ? Because he wanted to get reelected.
We were betrayed from within
Hispanic gratitude for an amnesty bill would last perhaps a decade. Then things would settle down and the Democrats would find they'd burned their only major calling card with Hispanic voters. Those new citizens are actually far more socially conservative than most Democratic candidates. And they put a much higher value on family and family values than they do on their pocketbooks. Many of them (certainly not all, of course) are actually fairly industrious workers who resent government handouts and will work their way up into the middle class.
To attract this constituency, Republican candidates will need to move further to the right on social issues and get a little backbone in speaking against abortion and homosexuality. I see this as a good thing, actually, even though I believe an amnesty bill would in general be bad for rule of law and for the country.
Enlighten us as to when. In the meantime, write a check for the $2.5 trillion dream (per the Heritage Foundation) you just had.
You overestimate the power of social issues in winning over Hispanics. Also, the fact is that there will always be conservatives fighting for an end to mass immigration, and that means that the Democrats will always be able to demagogue this issue.
...because of the changing demographics and because of people like me who used to vote Republican, but from now on will not.
They can send their donation requests to the illegals.
I was with Bush 100% on the war on terror and Iraq, but he should be impeached if he signs this bill. The Republican leadership has sold out and have screwed law abiding Americans.
It's definitely time for a good third party.
at 44%? Also there is a good point that Hispanics are socially conservative. If the party doesn't play into people like Tancredo I think we might have a pretty good shot at the hispanic vote.
This issue transcends electoral politics, all snark aside. If the United States decides it is little more than a Third World socialist backwater, then you would be right. At this point, it is all up in the air.
I'm actually over arguing this matter. The GOP probably is near-dead due to morons like Ken Mehlman, etc. If it is serious and engages serious people, it will buckle down for the almost inevitable defeat it faces in 2008, acknowledge that there are principles it holds, and then engages in the forum of ideas. At this point, it seems ready to engage, haplessly, in the identity politics you laid out. If so, Democrats/socialits win.
of the population, so 56 to 44 is a margin that it seems like we could overcome. As far as principles, there are principles on the side to easing up on immigration restrictions too. Some conservative believe in letting the market take its course and allowing people to decide their destinies rather than leaving that up to the government, this would mean allowing more immigrants.
When will this myth die? Bush won at most 40% of the latino vote in 2004. This 44% figure has been debunked from both the right and left. You are deluding yourself if you still believe it. Besides which, and as another pointed out, this would still represent a double-digit loss to an ever-growing part of the electorate. That is crazy thinking.
As far as the conservative case for unending and increased levels of mass immigration; well, I don't think such a case exists to be honest, if for no other reason than the near-certainty that such policies will result in more Democrats. Your idea of letting markets decide immigration levels instead of the govt might make sense to some libertarians, but its not conservative. Afterall, what is the govt in this example? It is the representatives of the people, and of course the people should decide who and how many enter the nation, not the Market, especially seeing as how the Market will react to whatever amount of immigration we allow.
Its a strange case to make for someone with a username of 'populist conservative.'
The OP is correct, this is political suicide. Having lived in on the US-Mexican border for 12 years I will agree that most latinos are socially conservative in some ways but very liberal in others. Cities (like El Paso) with a heavy concentration of latinos overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
for going along w/ this amnesty bill. Reps will NOT even get credit for it. Dems will. There was NO gain for Reps. Only serving to erode their own base.
Real change requires real change. -Newt Gingrich
Last year when similar immigration reform was being debated, James Inhoff suggested that as bad as the amnesty proposals were, the proposals for LEGAL immigration were even worse.
Most people (even those among us here on redstate) are totally unaware that the congress is trying to implement drastic changes to legal immigration as well.
Inhoff projected that conservative estimates of increased legal immigration from Latin American countries will add anywhere between 60 million and 100 million new LEGAL citizens to the USA during the next two decades. That would be the largest increase in immigration in our nation's history. Not only would it change the demographics of the nation, it would also change the culture. Not to mention the huge strain 100 million people would put on social services, entitlements, etc...
You can thank GW Bush and Ted Kennedy.