HEREis a recent article slamming sanctuary city movements in California. An interesting aspect is that persons who have had a relative die by the hands of illegal immigrants, They are called “Angel Families” feel snubbed by democratic lawmakers. Refusing to meet with them or listen to their needs.
Many were lifetime democrats before this but have left the party over this.
HERE is a story about how democrats booed an angel family when they were told how one families 93 year old grandmother was raped by an illegal.
HERE is an article pointing to a poll showing Americans in general oppose sanctuary cities.
Now what I want to ask, while this might go over in the democratic strongholds like in California, will this hurt or help the democratic party in general across the nation?
It’s not an issue that many voters will vote on. Some will, and the overwhelming majority will not. And among those that will vote based on this issue, they were not likely to vote Democratic anyway.
ETA: if you compare the number of voters who will vote against Trump simply mostly because of DACA, to the number of voters who will vote against Dems mostly because of sanctuary cities, I’m betting it’s a wash.
I live in a sanctuary city and right near a much larger one, and it is a complete non-factor. Nobody talks about it, even during election season. And there are tons of Latino immigrants here, so it’s not just a symbolic gesture.
I suspect this is just another right-wing meme to keep the base fired up through Fox News and talk radio when it’s really a non-factor on the ground.
For every person that has had a family member killed by an illegal immigrant, there are a thousand people who work with, live next door to, or are friends with an illegal immigrant. Most people do not see illegal immigrants as the threat that you do.
Thank you for your concern(and your links to FoxNews , Breitbart and right wing editorials), Urbanredneck. I have no doubt you are looking out for the best interests of the Democratic Party, and I look forward to your wholehearted support when it comes to the next election.
I’d be inclined to go with what **Ravenman **and Lamar Mundane said. However, and as foreshadowed in the OP itself, I do entirely expect that the GOP side will seek to intensely Willy-Horton the issue every chance they can. To be honest, that may actually be effective to excite the base in some areas outside the actual so-caled sanctuary cities where the presence/arrival of “others” is perceived as a dire but vaguely defined threat.
While I think the OP is way off in terms of this effect, you are missing the point. Of course people who live in the big cities are mostly supportive of this, and are not talking about it. It’s the people who don’t live in such cities that are critical of it. I have friends and relative who live in such areas and they are all up in arms about this. But they were not likely to vote for the Democrats anyway.
I am fairly sure people who take Breitbart reporting at face value are not going to be considering voting for Democratic candidates anyway. But then I also assumed people who posted in GD wouldn’t be taken in by it either.
Urbanredneck, I’m having trouble understanding why you are concerned about this. If the situation is as dire for the Democrats as you are painting it, then you should be cheering for the supposed break this gives your own political party.
And in particular, notice that this law (and others like it) DO NOT COVER the case that the GOP has “invented” as their cause: undocumented immigrants who have broken other laws beyond mere immigration. As s usual, they’ve invented a problem just so they can strong-arm a “solution.”
Do you really think someone choosing the name “Urbanredneck” is trying to pose as a concerned Democrat? And while a bunch of his links are crap, the hill article discussing a Harvard poll seems legit and the important one as far as election effects go.
But in the end I tend to agree with Ravenman’s first response. Not that big of a vote motivation and for those it is, probably doesn’t actually change their vote.
**Will the pro amnesty and sanctuary city movements hurt democrats?
**Not at all. People that think there is something wrong with sanctuary cities are not voting Democratic in the first place. Being opposed to the false notion of white supremacy, as an example, is another thing that will never hurt Democrats.
Most Americans either think that immigration laws are the law and should be followed or, even among the ones who are ambivalent on that point, realize that having to go back to your home country where all your family live, and which you only left in the purpose of working for a few years before going back, not to emigrate, is not the same thing as being kicked into a shaft full of molten lava.
The first group will be distinctly turned away by Democratic politicians on the first point and the latter will at least view the Democratic party as the party of a bunch of ivory tower morons who are making mountains out of molehills. It’s not a compelling sales point that you’re a reasonable and rational person who can make real, hard decisions.
The first group would likely never vote Democratic anyways, but the second might have done so.
U.S. population growth will continue to be driven by immigrants. Over the next ~40 years, over 20% of new citizens by birth will be from mothers who weren’t born in the U.S. themselves (according to the U.S. Census Bureau). I don’t think it’ll hurt a political party to be on the record as being pro-immigrant. On the other hand, the Non-Hispanic White population is expected to drop from over 60% today to under 45% over that same time period (same source). I do think it’ll hurt a political party if they cater exclusively to that specific audience, and Republicans at least used to think the same way (as seen in the 2012 Post-Mortem).
What would be bad for Democrats is if Republicans learn how to live under a big tent.
