Well, make up your mind. Pretty soon, you are going to be advancing the case that Obama is a reckless spending miser and a celibate slut.
That would take me too far off topic again.
I don’t worry about demographics and I don’t think Lindsey Graham should either. Remember when the senior vote was overwhelmingly Democratic? Remember when young people supported Republicans? Heck, even George Bush beat Gore among 18-29 demographic:
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_00.html#.UEIjCaApBkg
Notice that Bush also won 35% of Hispanics and 41% of Asians in 2000. There’s no reason in the short term that Republicans can’t continue to do that while still winning the white vote by double digits. That is more than sufficient to keep them winning elections at least half the time for the foreseeable future. If they stop the whole culture war BS, there’s no reason they can’t break even among Hispanics and Asians. I’m not worried about the African-American vote, as Graham would say, they aren’t generating enough of those either:
The crucial demographics to win over are Hispanics and Asians. And I’d expect the Asian population to grow much faster than the projections in that Wikipedia article.
You’ll also notice that the white share of the population isn’t actually expected to drop much between now and 2050. That’s because a lot of Hispanics are white. Is a white guy named Rodriguez and culturally different than a white guy named O’Connor or Vigorito? Should we expect different voting behavior? I don’t.
Of course he is, not least because many of your compatriots don’t consider Rodriguez to be white. It’s not a new story. In the early 20th century, Vigorito wasn’t considered white; in the mid 19th century O’Connor wasn’t. As long as your party is making Latin American immigration an issue (not just illegal immigration), Rodriguez isn’t going to vote for you, regardless of how white you think he looks.
I wonder if anything has changed since then, like their stance on immigration and their perceived attitude toward Latino voters.
Hmm.
You know, there was something that changed: their stance on immigration and their perceived attitude toward Latinos. Bush ran as a moderate on immigration. McCain (who was a moderate on immigration in the Senate) had to abandon that position because the Republican base hated it, and Romney isn’t moving back toward the center on that one. McCain got 31 percent of the Hispanic vote and while Romney’s people are trying to get back to just about Bush’s level, right now they’re on pace to fall short of McCain. McCain also did worse than Bush with Asian voters and Romney doesn’t appear to be close to Bush’s level right now.
Depends. Are Republican politicians targeting people who look like Rodriguez for deportation and asking for their papers? If so, you might expect Rodriguez to be more reluctant to vote Republican. The problem is that some Republican leaders don’t seem to recognize this as a problem.
And then when they ask why you are treating them this way, blame it on high taxes and government regulation.
But that will change for Rodriguez, just as it did for Vigorito and O’Connor. Just as it already has changed for a guy named George Zimmerman.
The GOP position on immigration has mostly been the mainstream position on immigration. Enforcement first. Democrats have shifted way off into la-la land on the subject. Once we have a sensible immigration policy it will be off the political radar. The policy practiced since the 1980s of “have laws, don’t enforce them, issue an amnesty every 20 years” is not a sensible immigration policy. Even Democrats pretend to support strict enforcement. Once we actually have it, it won’t be an issue anymore. We’ll be just like every other country in the world.
Elucidator pretty much sums up what liberals want conservatism to be: loveable losers.
Sorry, but that’s been liberalism’s proper role since 1980 and Obama’s election has done nothing to change that.
That doesn’t respond at all to what I wrote, but it’s some quality spin.
Right now we have a situation where both parties claim to be for enforcement, but one party is winking and nodding to Hispanic voters, sending signals that they really only will enforce the law as minimally as necessary to satisfy the rubes. Once that charade ends and we either get actual enforcement or a more liberal immigration policy, the issue won’t matter so much.
And I’d add that in the future, immigration will matter to 3rd and 4th generation Hispanics about as much as immigration matters to 3rd and 4th generation Italians. I know of no demographic group whose political support is contingent on letting more of their members enter the country. To the extent that it is a problem at this moment in time, it’s becuase of the unique dysfunctionality of our immigration system. This is a very temporary problem. Soon we’ll have a coherent policy like every other country in the world.
(bolding mine)
What am I missing here? Who is/was doing the winking?
The linked/quoted article has links to the official numbers used as the basis of the statement quoted.
Wow. Caught under 10% of them. Granted, it’s better than Republicans have done, but Republican Presidents since Eisenhower have been generally lax on enforcement as well and we’re talking about a really low bar here.
When the INS becomes as vigilant as the IRS, we can talk.
How do you enforce immigration law? Have DHS grabbing random people off the street and forcing them to prove citizenship? Everyone likes to talk about enforcement, but they never offer a concrete way to do that(that wouldn’t be unconstitutional and horrible).
You want to solve illegal immigration? Why is it so easy to find an under the table job in the USA? The USA is overflowing with under the table work, far more than other countries.
That’s not a coherent immigration policy either. Let people come in, just so long as they don’t try to support themselves? Then turn around and let them access public resources?
The GOP is clearly on the side of rule of law. That may alienate Hispanic voters, but it’s consistent with our laws and our Constitution. The Democrats, on the other hand, don’t like the law, but don’t have the political courage to change the law. Instead, they rail against enforcement. Somehow, this makes Hispanics prefer Democrats.
I will believe that when I see them advocating the prosecution on all employers that hire illegal immigrants.
Then again, you need to advocate for a law change. Republicans support current law and support enforcement of current law. Democrats hate the law, yet don’t have the guts to change the law.
Under current law, hiring illegal immigrants is a misdemeanor and the fines are paltry.
And again, focusing on employment is exactly the wrong thing to do. It tells illegals that they are free to stay, just so long as they don’t better themselves in the process. THey are however free to use taxpayer resources and get education benefits, which they are then not allowed to use their skills here. Great plan, educate them and then tell them they can’t work.
Democrats currently hold the Hispanic vote because of BS pandering like that. If anything, they don’t want to fix the immigration system because that would resolve the issue.
As if illegal immigrants will somehow risk their lives to come here to be lazy, or for the schools. You are really reaching now.
Not all illegals come here looking for work. They come for a better life, and a better life can be had in many ways. Safer neighborhoods, a less oppressive government, and yes, better schools for their children. Offering public education for children of illegals IS a draw.
But we’re starting to drift off topic. My point is simply that immigration policy is an unresolved issue right now, and that has created a temporary situation where the party that is more interested in the enforcement side is losing Hispanic voters to the party that’s more interested in amnesty. That situation will not last for long.
No it isn’t. If illegal immigrants were banned from public services, but not from jobs by employers breaking the law, they would still continue to risk their lives to come here. Denying them services will not reduce the number of illegal immigrants. They come here to make money to send home. If they don’t have a job, it doesn’t make any difference if their children are in school, or they get treated at the emergency room. They aren’t earning money to send home, so there is no point is risking their life to come here. Social services are not why the vast majority are coming here, so arguing otherwise is pointless.