The GOP’s Growing Hispanic Problem

June 11th, 2010 at 6:22 am | 90 Comments |

| Print

Republicans are tough on immigration. Republicans are tough on Sonia Sotomayor. Hispanics will now have their opportunity to be tough on Republicans. Census population estimates released Thursday find that as of July 1, 2009, minorities collectively made up a majority in four states (Hawaii, New Mexico, California, and Texas), 317 counties, and the District of Columbia.

The change will only accelerate. Of children under age 5, almost half –  48.3% – are minorities.

Hispanics are, of course, the biggest group among non-white minorities. But the numbers of East Asians and South Asians are also rapidly expanding, both due to immigration and to higher birthrates among immigrants.

The GOP base is found among non-Hispanic whites. It’s almost possible to project when this base will cease to yield voting majorities.  The average median age of a non-Hispanic white in the United States is 41.2. That figure for Hispanics….27.4. Blacks and Asians are also considerably younger, with average median ages of 30.3 and 33.7 respectively.

Republicans have worked hard to swing Hispanic voters into the GOP column. Both George W. Bush and John McCain – like George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan before them  - advocated open immigration policies in hopes of appealing to Hispanic voters. But the key fact about Hispanic voters is that they are relatively poor. They respond to economic much more than ethnocultural messages. And Republicans have yet to devise an economic message that is relevant to Hispanic voters and consistent with other GOP themes.

We may feel the tremors of the changing electoral landscape sooner than most believe. It’s almost inconceivable that a Republican can win the presidency if he does not carry the state of Texas. Yet more than half the Texas population is minority already, and it will not be long before more than half the Texas electorate is minority as well. Will Texas then follow California into the blue column?

The GOP still has time to fix its Hispanic problem. If the flow of immigration slows, perhaps the time available can be extended a little longer. But the problem will arrive – and must be solved.

Recent Posts by Jeb Golinkin



90 Comments so far ↓

  • Carney

    Cforchange, see Hertel, Bradley R. and Mark C. Russell. “Examining the absence of a gender effect on abortion attitudes: Is there really no difference?” Sociological Inquiry, vol.69, 1999.

    http://www.sociology.vt.edu/people/Hertel.html

    Naturally, the AFA jumped on the survey:

    http://www.afajournal.org/archives/24040000347.asp

    “Bradley R. Hertel and Mark C. Russell of Virginia Polytechnic Institute used data from General Social Surveys over a 22-year period, from 1972 to 1994. Consistent through all categories of marital status (single, married, widowed), Hertel and Russell found that, in general, ‘men are more supportive of abortion rights under non-extreme circumstances [no endangered health, deformities, or rape] than women.’ Women, on the other hand, held a more pro-life perspective.”

    Here’s Gallup from 2003, saying that women are also more likely to be morally opposed to abortion than men (56 to 49 percent respectively):

    http://www.ncfpc.org/stories/030602s1.html

    On affecting voting patters, here’s one link, using Wirthlin Group data:

    http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/voters.htm

    All voters, women voters, and women Republican voters all voted pro-life more than pro-choice if the issue affected their vote.

    I’ll admit these surveys aren’t as recent as I’d like – I probably remembered those talking points from years back. Still, the America of 1995 wasn’t some drastically different country.

  • Carney

    busboy33, are you so isolated in ideology that you would deny that our welfare state and systematic preferences that privilege immigrants over the native-born have a net attraction effect? Are there enough high-minded poor peasants who refuse to come here because they wouldn’t want to burden us or take unfair advantage, so as to counteract those who would be attracted? If not, you are just objecting to someone calmly acknowledging reality because it makes a group you favor look bad. What other realities should we hush up in the interests of PC?

    And when there’s a dispute about the meaning of an item of law, you go to the intent of the authors and ratifiers. It’s abundantly clear they did not intend the 14th to be the open-ended weapon forcing all sorts of modern leftist policies that modern leftists claim. We don’t need to amend the 14th, just pass a law banning birthright citizenship for aliens’ children, which the 14th does not ban.

  • Carney

    Cforchange, I’ve tried to answer your question, but my post hasn’t appeared. Trying to repost it gets a “duplicate comment” block. But I don’t see a “your comment is awaiting moderation” prompt either as I sometimes do on a post that has multiple URLs.

  • Xclamation

    Carney, how do you define “high-achiever”? I mean, should we be encouraging only wealthy couples to have extra kids? Or does “high-achiever” apply to people who are dirt poor but are good with children, or dedicate their lives to helping others, even though it means accepting a life of poverty and food stamps? How about monks who take vows of poverty? What about people who are financially successful but so God-awful miserable that they actually serve to decrease the total happiness of all the people around them?

    And, in order to get the go-ahead to over-procreate, would people need to fill out a form and provide letters of recommendation? Does there need to be a general consensus among the community or would it be enough for a single government agent to certify that Persons A & B constitute a high-achieving power-couple and are thus formally encouraged to pump out litter after litter?

    Also, could a single person be found to be a high-achiever, even if encouraging them to breed more frequently would increase the number of children raised in “broken homes”?

    Finally, what happens if it turns out that “high-achievers” (however you define the term) manage to accomplish so much only because they don’t have a lot of children and family obligations which sap their strength and energy?

  • Carney

    Xclamation, those are all great questions, but before we dive headlong into the weeds, let’s realize that current demographic policy is not normal, natural, or neutral – it is not what would happen if we just left well enough alone.

    Instead, current policy intensely presses demographics in a particular direction; indeed it is radically demographically transformative. For such wrenching change to be happening as a direct result of public policy, surely there must have been a sustained public desire for that change, and a broad consensus as to its urgent necessity. Oh wait – neither has been the case.

    While the 1996 welfare reform (since watered down) ended the federal mandate that all state welfare plans provide open-ended cash rewards for welfare recipients that have more children on welfare, lifelong multi-generational welfare dependency remains a normative lifestyle in entire communities. That by definition means that people who cannot or will not take care of themselves and their dependents are being rewarded for creating more dependents, and this reward comes at the direct expense of the productive, responsible, and competent. When you tax something, you get less of it, and when you subsidize something, you get more of it.

    On the immigration front, the 1965 immigration law we are still living under, which abandoned the principle of maintaining the demographic status quo, was sold to the public by Ted Kennedy, who in a floor speech, insisted:

    “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

    Every single one of those reassurances turned about to be false, and completely false.

  • Carney

    I haven’t even mentioned issues such as affordable family formation – the ability of a blue collar or middle class wage-earner to support a wife and kids in a house of his own in a safe neighborhood near a decent school. A myriad of leftist policies on the environment, “sprawl”, crime, and others directly interfere with this. Other liberal policies, and cultural values, encourage high-IQ women to spend their prime reproductive years in the workforce rather than raising children. None of these policies are, or should be regarded, as “neutral” or normative – they all push and change our demographic makeup.

  • ottovbvs

    Carney // Jun 11, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    “OK, otto, so you’re willing to accept a relentlessly shrinking portion of high achievers in the population, which will inevitably mean negative trends in every possible social metric: income, education, crime, welfare usage, drug usage, illegitimacy, you name it.”

    ….why do you feel this compulsion to lie and misrepresent what I say all the time?….its so pathetically transparent………if one accepts that the key to maintaining 80/90′s growth rates is immigration then you make sure that you maintain the ratios of high achievers amongst your immigrant intake…..although coming from a modest background doesn’t necessarily mean you’re not going to be a high achiever…..America’s full of people from modest homes who have done outstandingly well

  • ottovbvs

    Carney // Jun 11, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    ” The most disastrous possible set of long term social circumstances is staring at us in the face in the demographic numbers, and you yawn?”

    ……btw Carney……those bog trotters from Ireland, Italians from Palermo, Jews from Russian Shtetls, and Poles from the forests and didn’t exactly move in the highest social circles

  • dante

    So let me get this straight, you have GOPers using the term “raghead” and pushing legislation in AZ that (at least the original version) are extraordinarily racist, and yet the problem that the Republicans have is that they haven’t put forth an economic plan for them???

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahaha

    No, seriously, the reason you have a race problem is that you have a bunch of racists in the party. You can put forth as many “economic plans” for them as you want, but if you’re going to have people completely unapologetic for using terms like “raghead”, and pushing for legislation that requires police to check the “residency papers” of everyone they come into contact with, you’re not going to win over the hearts and minds anytime soon.

    (and the best example I heard of the AZ law is, your teenage child has a Hispanic friend. Do you allow her in your car when you’re driving your daughter and her friends to the movies? If you get stopped, *you’re* responsible for her legal status)

  • franco 2

    greenray // Jun 11, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Sorry, you are wrong. I am attacking Frum Forum’s policies and Golinkin is an example of them. I am only secondarily attacking this young man’s ideas, and I make those distinctions.

    “To add insult to injury, your editorial expertise is not even remotely correct. Singular terms can and are found “among” groups. A quick check of the definition of “among” may illuminate this fact for you:”

    Er, wrong again. Supplying the definition doesn’t help your case. You mean to tell me the sentence isn’t awkward? Spelling it out for you, “base” is a collective singular term and therefore it is ambiguous to use the “among” wording. If you said, “a stand of pine trees among cedars”…or “a herd of cattle ran among the chickens” is bad wording because the singular collective loses it’s definition as a group, the reader becomes confused as to what is “among” what, because there are essentially two groups. I provided for clarity’s sake an alternate construction ““The GOP base consists of mostly non-Hispanic whites…”is what Jeb should say.” Tell me objectively which sentence is more clear and readable? That or, “The GOP base is found among non-Hispanic whites.”

    But instead of understanding the underlying concept and recognizing the ambiguity of the sentence on it’s face, you run off and find a dictionary and double-down on wrong.

    Further, “to add insult to injury” is a strange use of the idiom to say the least, and it is exactly the kind of expression that emanates from the author himself. That you Jeb?

    “Clearly the word “possible” can take on important shades of meaning (i.e. “almost possible”, “slightly possible”, “strongly possible”, etc.). The construction Golinkin chose efficiently communicates that while it is currently impossible to make a precise prediction on when the Republican base will be insufficient to yield a voting majority, there will soon come a time when a prediction can be made (hence “almost possible”).”

    Oh, is THAT what the author was trying to say? I thought that was one of the possibilities…anyway, nice try but it comes up short. “Strongly possible” really should read “probable” or, “there is a strong possibility” and “slightly possible” should read “improbable” or “a slight possibility” but “almost possible” is especially awkward. We are talking about predicting outcomes not potential, therefore the word “possibility” is a better term than “possible” since it is a noun and has a slightly different connotation than the adjective “possible”. This is starting to sound technical (and perhaps too nuanced for your sensibilities) so let’s go to usage. I did a Google search of the term “almost possible”. I wanted to see if it was used by others. It’s not. There are a couple of exceptions, notably someone who used the term in the realm of physics and “thought experiments” and is a good use of the term in that context. “Almost impossible” gave millions of results. Why is that? Is Jeb an innovative wordsmith or just a bad writer?

    “I suppose this is to be expected in a world where conservative talking heads have turned the words “nuance” and “intellectual” into slander. Again, it is ironic that your inability to grasp subtle distinctions, which is a hallmark of adolescent idealism, reflects your intellectual immaturity much more than on Golinkin’s.”

    Man, it’s just bad writing. Get over it and learn to write better. Just because someone has a University degree and writes for Frum doesn’t make him an intellectual and just because someone points out that your friend is a bad writer doesn’t mean “nuance” is lost on the critic. On the contrary, it is you and your friend Jeb who lack the ability to make distinctions and detect nuance.

  • Rabiner

    I’m just stunned at how easy it is for Carney to blame the ‘leftist’ policies of ‘sprawl’ and equal pay as reasons for the republican problems with Hispanics. Seriously dude, grow up on this issue. Sprawl is caused due to a desire for people to have that ‘American dream’ of a house with a front lawn and picket fence. Not sure how that is to blame on ‘leftists’.

    Equal pay has made highly intelligent and productive women willing to work for a good wage during their reproductive years rather than just have children. That seems to be a capitalist occurrence in addition to policies determined to narrow the gap and have equal pay for equal work between genders.

  • Xclamation

    Carney, as you’ve managed to side-step my questions, please allow me to avoid directly responding to any of your points.

    Instead, I’d like to point out that just because something is not normal, or unnatural or biased does not make it “wrong”. Living past 40 is pretty much the historical definition of, “not normal, natural or neutral”.

    In regards to welfare, I’d like to know what the best guess is as to how many people actually abuse public assistance. Also, I’d like to know what percentage of people on welfare are part of the, “lifelong multi-generational welfare dependency” (admittedly, I haven’t done more than a Google search or two, but I’ve never been able to find any actual hard numbers). The reason I want to know is because, frankly, if the amount of fraud and permanent dependency is low enough (and we can debate what “low enough” is later), I’d be willing to accept it as a necessary evil. Sure, a necessary evil that we should work to reduce and eventually eliminate, but an acceptable problem nonetheless. Because as much as we bitch about welfare, I think we’d probably bitch more if the bodies of the dead poor began to stack up in the gutters and alleys like they used to.

    Finally, a quick thought about the, “myriad of leftist policies” you mentioned that prevent people from having good paying jobs and nice schools. Is it really your contention that every social ill can be traced back to liberal thought and that there is no fault left to assign to conservative ideas? Because if so, well, honestly, I’m going to stop engaging in this conversation. It’s perfectly reasonable to believe that, on the whole, conservative measures are better than liberal. But to be convinced that every bad thing is the result one school of thought while every advancement and solution belongs to the other school belies a world-view in which anyone who disagrees with you is either very stupid, purposefully naive or outright evil. And that’s just not the way the world works. Also, it’s not at all normal, natural or neutral.

  • busboy33

    @carney:

    “you would deny that our welfare state and systematic preferences that privilege immigrants over the native-born”

    I would and do absolutely deny that America privliges immigrants over native citizens, but its not because of any isolated ideology. Rather, it’s because I’m not out-of-my-mind paranoid.
    Still, maybe I’m the one who’s deluded. Can you name me one privilege an immigrant has that a native born citizen does not? Just one. I can’t think of a single thing.
    A serious question here. You say that if I can’t see this completely obvious fact, I’m missing what is in front of my face. I’m so blinded by ideology that I don’t understand clear facts and reality. So coming up with an example of something immigrants have that other citizens do not should be easy as pie, right?

    “And when there’s a dispute about the meaning of an item of law, you go to the intent of the authors and ratifiers”

    Yep. And what you fail to realize is that you’ve ruined your own argument with the magic words:

    “there is a dispute about the meaning”

    Lets look at the 14th Amendment language::
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    Are you honestly claiming that you find that sentence confusing? Is it any particular word, or all the easy-to-understand words linked together in a clear sentence that throws you off?

    Since you say you’re confused, let me help.
    “All persons” means any and all people. There are no exceptions to the word “all”.
    “born or naturalized in the United States”. The word “or” means that either condition triggers the provision — you can be born in the US and this Amendment applies to you, or you can be naturalized in the united states and this amendment applies to you.
    “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The word “and” means this condition must also be satisfied. You have to be bound by United States law for this Amendment to apply to you.
    (hint — babies on American Soil are covered by United States law, as are pretty much every person on American Soil)
    “are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”. This is called a declarative sentence. Born-or-naturalized + jurisdiction = citizen of state and country. Not “maybe equals”, but “DOES equal”.

    You aren’t trying to glean the original writer’s intent because the meaning isn’t clear to you. Rather, you are trying to glean the original writer’s intent because the meaning is crystal clear . . . and you just don’t like it. When there is NO dispute about the meaning, you go with the plain, clear language.

    And there is an absolutely vital reason for that.

    ANY act of “interpretation” is subject to inaccuracy. The more “interpretation” that a person does, the more likely that they are imposing their own preconceptions on the process. This isn’t ideology, its hard science.
    By definition, all people have slightly different experiences, and those experiences shape what words and ideas mean. As an example, imagine two children. One grew up in a loving, caring household . . . the other was physically and sexually abused. Now, ask each of them to explain what the word “home” or “family” or “parents” mean. One of them is going to have warm, positive associations with those words . . . the other will view those words at-best neutrally and at-worst with strong negative feelings.

    I’ll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

    The more removed each person’s life experiences are from another, the greater the likelyhood that different experiences will alter their viewpoint. What the word “fire” means to you subconciously is different than what it means to an aborigine in the jungle. In the same way, what it means to you is different than what it means to a caveman 10,000 years ago, even if you are both living in the exact same geographical area.
    I’m sure the 14th Amendment writers didn’t envision its application to modern day society. That’s not because they didn’t want it applied to modern day society, but rather because they didn’t envision modern day society. How could they? That’s why they stated their belief in the 14th Amendment as simply and in as straightforward manner as possible — to leave its meaning as unambiguous as possible. It’s up to the future people to follow those rules when new situations arise.

    The Amendment is clear and unambiguous. There is no “confusion” about its meaning. You want to change that, fine. You think that America is being destroyed, fine. You’re free to think that. As I said, there’s a perfectly simple way to achieve your goals — amend the Constitution. Go right ahead. I think you’ll fail miserably, but knock yourself out.
    But don’t pretend you’re not trying to re-write the Constitution, because you clearly are doing exactly that. Don’t pretend you don’t understand what “is” is.

    p.s.: for someone who decries name-calling, you might want to re-read how you address every single person who disagrees with you in the comments. It presents an . . . interesting . . . approach to not calling people names.

  • easton

    We don’t need to amend the 14th, just pass a law banning birthright citizenship for aliens’ children, which the 14th does not ban. So sayeth Carney the Constitutional Scholar.

    and Jeez Carney, do you really imagine society would long last if only the well to do had children? Don’t blame me that nature sorted it out that young people are best able to have children, and that if everyone waited until they were 40 our population would crash. Now I myself didn’t have my first child until I was near 40 and my last at 45, and there are many tradeoffs by doing so. My children are most likely never to remember their grandparents well (my oldest, if I am lucky) nor are parents likely to see them grow up and marry. I am also not as physically able to do what I used to, I took my kids to an amusement park and found myself mostly annoyed, 15 years ago I took my nephew and loved it, such is getting old. And worst of all, I have squandered 10 years or more that I will not be part of my childrens lives. If I had my first child at 25 and die at 50 I will at least have seen him into adulthood, at 45 he will only have a picture or a few videos.

    We are talking about the survival of our species, it is irresponsible not to support families. And having a child is a leap of faith. According to you only millionaires who can absolutely support dependents (in case they die an early death) should have children. Or only College graduates Lawyers or fasttrack young men should have children, since their wives will be dutiful and stay home to raise the 4 white children. C’mon that is just inane.

    Such classist bigotry is laughable. Obviously Carney doesn’t have a clue as to how the vast majority of the world lives. He views the vast majority of the world that is not a member of his mythical elite as not being worthy of being born (or maybe just enough to mow their lawns and collect their garbage)

  • ottovbvs

    busboy33 // Jun 11, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    …..Carney might also want to check out the subsequent sentence…….he’s a nutjob but not quite as despicable as some who pop up here…..the fact that these fruitcakes are reduced to trying to ‘spin’ the constitution tells all…..maybe he’s descended from bog trotters who moved in elevated social circles……my bog trotting ancestors certainly didn’t unless it was a matter of drinking a superior blend of poteen

    “all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States………….. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

  • Danny_K

    The GOP answer, unfortunately, is more likely to be voter suppression than new polices. Hans von Spakovsky is going to be very busy in the next decade plugging up leaks in the white majority.

  • rbottoms

    So let me get this straight, you have GOPers using the term “raghead” and pushing legislation in AZ that (at least the original version) are extraordinarily racist, and yet the problem that the Republicans have is that they haven’t put forth an economic plan for them???

    No, seriously, the reason you have a race problem is that you have a bunch of racists in the party.

    True that.

    “all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States………….. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

    The Constitution is sacred and must be protected at all costs. I know because the guys in the funny revolutionary hats keep telling me so.

    So don’t mess with the wisdom of the Founding Slaveholders.

    Except for the parts that let brown people become citizens. Those can go no problem.

  • Chekote

    Instead of spending so much time and energy defending themselves from the charge of being a party full of racists, why don’ Republicans put that energy to chasing out of the party the racist, homophobic elements in the party? It would be a lot easier and more effective than the current strategy.

  • Chekote

    I just find it incredibly stupid for Republicans to take on the 14th amendment. The party has an image among minorities as bigoted so what do Republicans do? Of the all amendments in the Constitution they pick on the one that was put there for only one reason: to give blacks citizenship rights. The GOP is stuck on stupid.

  • RedSonja2000

    Carney said:
    “OK, otto, so you’re willing to accept a relentlessly shrinking portion of high achievers in the population, which will inevitably mean negative trends in every possible social metric: income, education, crime, welfare usage, drug usage, illegitimacy, you name it. The most disastrous possible set of long term social circumstances is staring at us in the face in the demographic numbers, and you yawn?”

    by “high achievers” you mean “white people.” Why do you even bother talking in code? Hispanics think Republicans hate them. Why ever would they think that, I wonder?

  • ottovbvs

    Chekote // Jun 12, 2010 at 8:54 am

    “The GOP is stuck on stupid.”

    ……One of those occasion where we agree Chek…….so why do you think that on a host of other matters like de-regulation, economic management, stem cell research, equal pay for women, diplomacy, military strategy….you know the list…….do you generally consider them repositaries of wisdom?……..they’re the Jekyll and Hyde party ?

  • mlindroo

    bamboozer // Jun 11, 2010 at 9:09 am

    > Texas, although half minority remains perhaps
    > the most conservative state in the union.

    …yet the Lone Star state is bound to trend Democratic before long, just as California already has.

    Note that Democrats are united by a common economic ideology. The importance (or rather negative impact-) of social liberalism is overrated. Latinos and blacks may not be socially liberal, but most favor left-wing economic populism.

    Carney // Jun 11, 2010 at 11:14 am

    > A large portion of the population in discussion are non-voters,
    > either illegal aliens or green card holders. Expel the former
    > and remove birthright citizenship from future offspring of
    > the latter.

    The former strategy is totally unworkable. The latter strategy has been attempted in Germany, with discouraging results.

    Carney // Jun 11, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    > OK, otto, so you’re willing to accept a relentlessly
    > shrinking portion of high achievers in the population,
    > which will inevitably mean negative trends in every
    > possible social metric: income, education, crime,
    > welfare usage, drug usage, illegitimacy, you name it.

    AFAIK, “crime, welfare usage, drug usage, illegitimacy” rates per capita have declined since the 1980s and early 1990s.

    There is indeed less social mobility in the U.S. than in Western Europe, i.e. the children of poor parents are more likely to remain poor as adults. If generous government assistance to poor minorities cause dependency while reducing social mobility, how come e.g. Swedish kids from the underclass/working class are more likely to move up the social ladder? You can’t blame immigration since Sweden is surprisingly multi-ethnic; 13% of the population was born abroad.

    http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/01/the_economist_o.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/opinion/25brooks.html?_r=1

    MARCU$

  • jakester

    This problem is utterly the making of the do gooder pie-in-the-sky mentality from 1964 onwards. All that hoopla we were fed that “Diversity is Strength” or “Diversity is Key” is utter rot. Every piece of evidence says that multi-ethnic, especially multi-lingual societies in fact are WEAKER more PRONE to strife. Just look at the latest violent uprising in one of those dreadful old USSR ‘stans.

    Yet we are supposed to go out of our way to accommodate illegals and if we object we are labeled racists by those who actually want to smash white European hegemony in the USA under the rubric that is some sort of justice; as if the American Indian would applaud millions of new illegals streaming over our border because that would alleviate the white man’s victories of the past. Every time anyone tries to solve it legally they are attacked. I certainly do not my country to be reduced to a Latin American barrio culture, the same way I respect their countries’s desire to forgo some wealth that multinationals & world media would bring them in order to preserve their sovereignty and culture.

    I keep hearing how “PROUD” these people are, and we should respect their backwards culture as if it was some ancient gold jewelry. Well people of a proud culture usually try to improve their own country first, not encourage their people to sneak into a another country to be menials.

  • jakester

    RedSonja2000
    yes they do think GOPers hate them, Republicans usually hate criminals and people who disparage our culture.

  • mlindroo

    Redsonja2000 wrote:
    >>Hispanics think Republicans hate them. Why ever would they think that, I wonder?

    Jakester responded:
    > yes they do think GOPers hate them, Republicans usually hate criminals and
    > people who disparage our culture.

    That’s the GOP’s problem in a nutshell, then.

    The vast majority of Hispanics do not consider themselves anti-American criminals.
    If Republican talk show hosts call them “stupid and unskilled Mexicans” telling them to “shut your mouth or get out” , they will side with the Democrats for purely tribal reasons.

    MARCU$

  • busboy33

    @jakester:

    So you want a pure society ethnically? It’d be stronger, right?

    Great! Now, what ethnicity should we purge down to?

    The Irish? Disreputable lazy immigrant drunks. Irish Need Not Apply!
    Eastern Europeans? Disreputable criminal shiftless drains on society.
    Italians? Crooks, the whole lot of ‘em!
    Well, since we’ve gone through this same racist bull$h!t with every single wave of immigrants since the dawn of this country, why don’t we just cut to the chase. What is YOUR ethnic background, and then we can all agree to exclude everybody except your fine ancestors.

    The saddest thing is, you don’t even recognize that advocating for an ethnically pure society is racist. In the “melting pot” that is the United States. I don’t know if that’s sad or disgusting.

    So what evidece demonstrates that ethnically pure societies are “stronger”? After all, “every piece of evidence” establishes that, right?
    Interesting metric — “stronger”. I’m sure you will be happy to provide some evidence for this learned conclusion. Like carney, if “every” piece of evidence supports your amazing thesis, you should be able to rattle off a few with no problem. I can’t wait.

    Speaking of carney . . .

    @Carney:
    Where did you go? C’mon, just one example of immigrant preference. One? Please?

  • ottovbvs

    Speaking of carney . . .

    @Carney:
    “Where did you go?”

    …..Standard modus operandi for conservative idealogues

    1. Make ludicrous assertions
    2. They are debunked
    3. Bluster or obfuscate
    5. Repeat debunking
    6. Disappear

  • busboy33

    apologies for the double post:

    Here at Frum Forum, the commenters (even the trolls) seem to be from the “slightly more intelligent and educated” camp as opposed to the screaming cesspools like RedState.

    Even without the mouth-breathing insanity, how many commenters here are blatantly displaying anti-brown sentiments? Not anti-immigrant. Not anti-democratic. Anti-Brown. Dirty, lazy, shiftless, criminal, white-women-raping, big-lipped, uneducated . . .

    I’m sorry — which race were we insutling again?

    There are certainly non-racist conservatives. There are certainly non-racist Republicans. But nobody with two brain cells is going to thing the GOP is anything but racist if so many Reds feel comfortable acting like such asses in public.
    Think about the lack of couching phrasing. Not even bothering with “I’m not racist but. . .” or “some of my friends are brown”. Just straight-up “Mexicans (and any brownies, since they’re all the same) are bad people, as a society, as a genetic component, as human beings. They fail to live up to the high standards of . . . other races.” Just right out with it, with no hint that comments like this are simply crude, crass, pathetic, and socially looked down on. They live in a world where racism is not just tolerated but happily accepted.

    And the GOP just ignores it or makes excuses for it.

    If the GOP wants to even have a remote chance of shedding its racist image (first it was the Southern Strategy, now its the anti-Hispanic and anti-MidEast drivel) they need to aggressively turn on the racist commentary coming from all levels of the party. Failure to do so means the GOP will remain the “racist” party. That’s just common sense.
    So why doesn’t the GOP do that? Because they’re worried that a substantial enough percentage of their membership IS racist. I can’t think of any other rational reason.

    The GOP may not want to be the party of racism . . . but y’all are sure doing a bang-up job of convincing everybody else its true.

  • ottovbvs

    jakester // Jun 12, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    “All that hoopla we were fed that “Diversity is Strength” or “Diversity is Key” is utter rot. Every piece of evidence says that multi-ethnic, especially multi-lingual societies in fact are WEAKER more PRONE to strife.”

    …….so how did the USA make it…….we have a few stores in my town run by Italians, Indians, South Americans, Koreans, Chinese, Russians and some of them can’t speak English……since the USA is Exhibit A in melting pot theory this has to be one of the purblind comments I’ve heard in a while

  • busboy33

    @otto:

    just think how strong the US would be if we could get rid of all the genetic driftwood! We’d be really strong! We could totally win an arm-wrestling competition with China!!

  • jakester

    No Busboy
    They are breaking the law and at this rate, thanks to clueless people like you Latin America can move en masse into the US. If there were 15 million US illegals hanging out in Mexico and Guatemala, who had the gall to demand that their criminal behavior be sanctioned or they will scream racist, I would have no problem with those governments deporting them all nor would I tolerate anyone who had the gall to cry “racism” cause they were upset with a foreign nation enforcing their laws. Which BTW, are a lot tougher than ours
    These day when some group, like the racists at “The Race”aka “La Raza” play the race card, it’s for two reasons: a handout card and/or a get-out-of-jail-free card. If Mexicans feel they have a problem with whites, they can take it up with Madrid.

  • jakester

    ottovbvs
    Does the concept of 40 to 50 million Latin Americans, who previous wrecked or never developed their own country past the 18th century, forming a block of people who don’t even think it is necessary or refuse to use English. Who have it in their head that the SW United States belongs to them, and you imagine this is going to be strength, then I hate to see your idea of weakness. The US throttled down immigration for 40 years and that in part helped build a semi unified people. Now with modern communications and transportation, we are on the verge of getting swamped by people who can come here easily in a day and have absolutely no love for America or our culture. In the old days, due to the expense and hardships of travel, an immigrant pretty much understood that this was a permanent move. Now they can come, establish residency to milk us or worse, and never have to cut themselves off from their culture or relatives back home

  • jakester

    busboy33
    thanks for inserting your eugenics red herring in , that violates Godwins Law in full force.

  • busboy33

    @jakester:

    I inserted a eugenics red herring? So you didn’t type this:

    “Every piece of evidence says that multi-ethnic, especially multi-lingual societies in fact are WEAKER more PRONE to strife.”

    For someone who holds stong views, you certainly run away from them at the slightest provocation.

    Sure, you didn’t actually SAY that you want a racially pure country. You just pointed out how a multi-ethnic country is “weaker” (btw, still haven’t seen any of this wealth of evidence you’re sitting on, unless your repeated “hispanics are evil” is supposed to be evidence) and how unbelievably horrible hispanic immigrants are . . . then you left it hanging.

    Gee . . . whatever could you be driving at? You’re worse than my ex-girlfriend:
    “We should go out to dinner.”
    “Sure, where do you want to go?”
    “Well . . . I heard Red Lobster is having a special deal. I really like seafood, and we haven’t been to Red Lobster in a long time.”
    “So you want to go to Red Lobster?”
    “I never said that! Did I say ‘I want to go to Red Lobster’!?!”
    “. . . okay, where do you want to go?”
    “I don’t want to go to Coco’s, that’s for sure.”
    “. . . where . . . do . . . you . . . want . . . to . . . eat?”
    “That special at Red Lobster sure sounds like a good deal.”
    “So let’s go to Red Lobster!”
    “If YOU want to go to Red Lobster, that’s fine with me. I don’t care one way or another.”

    Don’t act like a child. That’s EXACTLY what you meant. At least be man enough to stand behind it.

    “These day when some group, like the racists at “The Race”aka “La Raza” play the race card, it’s for two reasons: a handout card and/or a get-out-of-jail-free card.”

    And these days, when some group, like the racists at the “Grand Old Party” aka “white bigots” play the race card, it’s for two reasons: they’re scared of their own shadow and/or Glen Beck told them to say it.

    p.s.: since you’re familiar with Godwin’s Law, I’m sure you know that your fake-flagging me is a “forfeit” to the argument. But please, ignore that. Respond by insulting me, then going on yet another tiresome diatribe about the evil brown menace. Because repeating it over and over somehow makes it true.

  • ottovbvs

    jakester // Jun 12, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    “Does the concept of 40 to 50 million Latin Americans, who previous wrecked or never developed their own country past the 18th century, forming a block of people who don’t even think it is necessary or refuse to use English……..The US throttled down immigration for 40 years and that in part helped build a semi unified people. .”

    ……….what an utterly simplistic reading of the situation…….there can be all sorts of reasons why societies fail (Irish society and southern Italian society had largely failed) and what tends to happen is that the most energetic members of those societies make their way to where greater opportunity/freedom etc exist……..actually the US only seriously curtailed immigration for about 20 years during isolation……since the late forties the legal and illegal flood of immigrants has returned and as the OECD has pointed the US needs about 25 million new immigrants over the next 20 years in order to maintain the growth rates of 80′s/90′s……..from the tenor of your remarks you’re clearly frightened by the changing demographics of US society (in fact your comments could easily have been lifted from the Ladies Home Journal of 1870 where there was concern about large numbers of noisy drunken Irish and smelly East European Jews flooding the country…..although they were of course useful as domestic servants!)

  • ottovbvs

    busboy33 // Jun 13, 2010 at 3:42 am

    …..btw busboy….loved the “girlfriend” conversation…..very accurate

  • sinz54

    ottovbs: so how did the USA make it
    The United States is multi-ethnic, but uni-lingual. There used to be one lingua franca, and that was English. All immigrants, regardless of the language they spoke, sent their children to school to learn to speak and write English.

    Plus, the Civil War settled the question of whether parts of the U.S. have the right to be autonomous (they don’t).

    After we won our independence from Britain, we first tried a weaker union, the Articles of Confederation. It didn’t work.

    And so, when my grandparents arrived in the United States, their children were taught in public school to be English-speaking AMERICANS. And that was true regardless of the ethnicity of the immigrants.

    That cultural union is fraying now, as militants of certain ethnic groups demand the right to be separate, a breed apart, from the rest of American society. In the past, they weren’t indulged, not even by Democrats. Now they are.

    We don’t want to emulate Yugoslavia, where “Balkanization” has become a term denoting fragmentation of a civilization into mutually hostile and suspicious factions.

  • ottovbvs

    sinz54 // Jun 13, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    “The United States is multi-ethnic, but uni-lingual. There used to be one lingua franca, and that was English. All immigrants, regardless of the language they spoke, sent their children to school to learn to speak and write English.”

    …….They still do Sinz……my local Chinese…..Father English non existent…..wife…..a little……Son just gone to Ivy League…..daughter still in high school but plans Ivy…..Liquor store…..Indian owned…..Father’s English very shaky…..son at college on sports scholarship…….for Americans you people are most defeatist, negative crowd, I’ve ever come across

  • hhr

    Greece the mother of Western Democracy is at present broke and on her last legs. The last time I checked there weren’t many Mexicans living in Athens. Bad ideas cause nations to fall not skin tone. What should scare Republicans into action is that many Hispanics (I would say wrongly) view our party as racist. That means that even if they agree with us they will not vote for our party. Until the GOP purges folks like the guy who called Nikky Haley “a rag head” were going to be in for a rude awakening.

    For years, many GOP political consultants ignored black voters, there arguments centered on insufficient numbers to winning. That may have been true in the past but add the Hispanic vote especially in key states and this can change the entire electoral map for years to come – especially in the South. The GOP’s failure to court black voters will be the same reasons they will fail to court Hispanics – a failure to offer and advocate a viable and practical solution to poverty and urban issues. There’s a reason so many blacks liked Jack Kemp the guy showed up and offered real solutions. If Hispanic numbers increase as most experts say they will, the Democrats will control the seats of power for a very long time. When Texas goes back into Democrat hands that’s probably a sure sign the tide has begun.

  • Slide

    sinz54 // Jun 13, 2010 at 5:46 pm: “That cultural union is fraying now, as militants of certain ethnic groups demand the right to be separate, a breed apart, from the rest of American society.”

    You really shouldn’t talk about the teabaggers that way.