The Republican party's nativist shift

The Guardian ^ | Feb. 12, 2011 | Daniel Denvir

[triumphant values]

"There is not a monolithic vote within the Hispanic community," said Tom Tancredo, a former Colorado congressman and a leader of the anti-immigrant right. He was speaking before a crowd at this week's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the annual gathering of the political right that draws over 10,000. "They do not vote the way African Americans do."

It's true. Latinos are neither a homogeneous community nor single-issue voters. But they are far more united today than they were 10 years ago; Latino voters are increasingly turned off by a Republican party they find intolerant and unwelcoming. Fresh off resounding victories in the mid-term elections, Republicans were thrilled to read the outcome of the most recent census: 12 seats shifted, largely from the Democratic Rust Belt to the Republican strongholds of the Sun Belt. But the census also shows that the country is changing in a way that will most certainly hurt a Republican party increasingly united in opposition to immigration reform – and hurt them for the long haul. The country is becoming less and less white, particularly in Sun Belt states like Arizona.

Republicans are playing with fire, and they know it. They want to take a hard line on immigration without inviting negative electoral consequences: while CPAC presenters uniformly spoke against reform, they went out of their way to highlight the perspective of anti-immigrant Latinos, and to downplay the long-term electoral risk of angering Latino voters.

"Yeah, Republicans get 35% of the Hispanic vote, generally," said Tancredo. "But you'll get 35% of the Hispanic votes whether you're the most pro-amnesty Republican or not ... Even John McCain didn't do that well. What more do they want?"

[triumphant values]

The Republican party's nativist shift

Oh how I wish it were so.

[triumphant values]

"This is not a debate," a man from a group called Youth for Western Civilisation said, while introducing Tom Tancredo. "At CPAC, we don't have debates on whether healthcare should be repealed. We don't have debates on whether abortion should be a core concern for the conservative movement. We shouldn't have debates on this either. Because frankly, unless we get it right on this issue, none of the rest matters."

Have a look. Your group got some mention in the Red Guard[ian].

[BobL]

From what I can see, Republicans (or at least conservatives) want to send illegals home, and maybe, cut down on the number of terrorists (i.e., Muslims) we admit. They also want this country to be English-language. Seems reasonable to me and if it gets rid of a bunch of voter fraud, it’s a win-win.

As far as legal Hispanics are concerned, the ability of the Dems to get them on board is determined by whether they identify themselves as Hispanic or as American. The only way to get them to identify themselves as Hispanic is to make sure they don’t learn English - or at least don’t learn it well. Here in Texas, I work with a boatload of Hispanics, who speak perfect English, and they have no problem at all matching up against Whites and Asians (and most are pretty darn conservative). So, it seems to me, that if Republicans REALLY want Hispanics, they will take the steps necessary to integrate them into our culture (or what’s left of it), rather than pander...which CANNOT WORK.

[wolfpat]

Anybody else catch the embedded lie? Republicans and conservatives are NOT against immigration reform. We’re against bogus reform that starts with amnesty.

If people from other countries want to come here and be Americans, we welcome them with open arms and are thankful for them. If they want to come here and still be what they were, F___ them. They ought to stay home.

[Méabh]

“Nativist?” I don’t know any Republicans who are against IMMIGRANTS who come here LAWFULLY and take the initiative to assimilate into our society instead of screaming for special accommodations.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

At the root level, these articles always seem to criticize Republicans for wanting to control immigration and protect our borders. Without controlled borders, you simply cannot be a sovereign nation. I doubt there are very many Republicans who are purely “nativist” and want to prevent anybody from emigrating to the US. After all, we all came from somewhere else fairly recently.

[WilliamHouston]

Oh noes.

Someone should represent the interests of natives ... taxpayers, working people, citizens, stakeholders ... not the Cheap Labor lobby, La Raza, the MSM, the Democratic Party, and illegal aliens.

[WilliamHouston]

I wrote a quick review of YWC’s presence at CPAC.

http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/ywc-returns-to-cpac/

I will respond to the Guardian article later this afternoon.

[triumphant values]

There's quite a few, including me, who frequent these threads who want a full and complete halt of all immigration.

We have 310 million people, half of whom we can't even convince to vote consistently conservative. It's insane to bring in any more, when 95% of the world is to the left of an East Coast Democrat.

Plus frankly, we just don't need them.

[Free Vulcan]

I don't buy a great deal of this crap. Certain jurisdictions are majority Mexican for sure, but it doesn't matter how many you have, it's still only 1 congressional seat or so many electoral votes. That's going to mute the effect.

Here's a a map of the hispanic population:

Here's a Congressional district map:

I assume the first map includes all Mexicans. Most of the population is concentrated on the border states and affects a significant but still a minority of districts. How many can vote legally though? What is that percentage and how many vote Democrat?

The numbers aren't as bad as they look...now. If we start to enforce immigration and don't give amnesty, I don't see the GOP being hurt long term. Helped I think as Mexicans become Americanized over the generations and tend to lean conservative.

We need to get going now though. If we wait too long it will be problem for the GOP.

[triumphant values]

Here in Texas, I work with a boatload of Hispanics, who speak perfect English, and they have no problem at all matching up against Whites and Asians (and most are pretty darn conservative).

Your antectdotal evidence isn't mirrored by studies of voting patterns, generational upward mobility, educational attainment, income level, crime rates, illegitimacy rates or welfare usage.

According to the largest intergenerational study of an ethnic group ever done, Telles and Ortiz of UCLA, found that Mexican-Americans actually had actually regressed by their fourth generation in America in many of those areas. That is unprecedented for an immigrant group.

Of course, being liberal sociologists they blamed it on "insitutional barriers and discrimination".

Here's a link to an article discussing it, that also links to their study which you can get in hardcover from Amazon:

Link

[Valin]

“Latino voters are increasingly turned off by a Republican party they find intolerant and unwelcoming.”

And who’s fault is that Tommy?

Now I would never say Tom Tancredo is an idiot with delusions of adequacy...but he does a very good impersonation of what one is like.

[DwFry]

I wish! With 10% unemployment there is no reason for having immigration (legal or illegal) at the current levels. It just shows a lack of concern for its own citizens by both parties.

BRING ON THE NATIVISTS!

[DwFry]

No, we all didn’t. My family has been here since 1718. At what point am I no longer an immigrant who should step aside for someone fresh off the boat (or across the river)?

We should look at the affects on our own people first when making decisions about our immigration system.

Also, we shouldn’t cheapen what it is to be an American but using the “We’re all immigrants” canard. We’re not.

[triumphant values]

And who’s fault is that Tommy?

I wouldn't call it a fault. More of a virtue.

[triumphant values]

Also, we shouldn’t cheapen what it is to be an American but using the “We’re all immigrants” canard. We’re not.

Absolutely true. Your family like my family were pioneers on an untamed continent. Draining the malarial swamps, building the roads, clearing the forests, dragging the stones.

Big difference between that and opening a tailor shop in Manhattan in 1921.

[BobL]

I agree that California certainly regressed...not as sure about Texas, or New Mexico - given that they are 45% Hispanic (Wikipedia) and elected a conservative, Hispanic, Republican governor.

In any case, it doesn’t matter - we cannot be a viable party via open-borders. If the Hispanics here don’t appreciate us trying to keep the US distinct from Mexico, well, I guess we just won’t get their votes.

In that case, maybe try to make up for it by getting immigrants from Western and Central Europe (as Islam starts really making its move), and the Christians in Egypt who will be looking for a country soon...and maybe Asians

Of course that depends on still not getting another New World Order type in the White House.

[wolfpat]

I would contend that the folks who come here to be Americans are folks who will vote conservatively. Folks who come here illegally are folks looking for a free ride, aka democRATs.

I’m sure we all agree that border enforcement is an essential first step. After that we can debate what to do next.

[BufordP]

There's too many .. IZzmms. Introspectionism, Antidisestablishmentarianism, supercalifragilisticexpialidociousnism. "My point is, we've been through this kind of period of isolationism, protectionism, nativism. I'm a little concerned that we may be going through the same period. I hope that these 'isms' pass..."

18½ posted on 02/13/2011 12:44:22 AM EST by Jorge Bush (Alamo? I forget.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: 3D-Joy; 50mm; AGreatPer; calcowgirl; cindyTrueSupporter; concretebob; Disco Dave; Doctor Raoul; ...

ping!

If you want off my ping list get over it!

There's too many .. IZzmms. Introspectionism, Antidisestablishmentarianism, supercalifragilisticexpialidociousnism. "My point is, we've been through this kind of period of isolationism, protectionism, nativism. I'm a little concerned that we may be going through the same period. I hope that these 'isms' pass..."

ping!

If you want off my ping list get over it!

[no-to-illegals]

Strange how one must go the UK for information. The UK does sometimes have better intelligence (did I say that?) Was that a gaseous moment? I find myself having to do this more and more for to gleam any intelligent conversation involving corespondents, and opinions offered. Brings about less gaseous moments for some, and more gaseous moments for others.

Thanks for the ping, BufordP.