Posted on 04/18/2014 9:30:53 AM PDT by Pelham
Republicans are famously divided on immigration reform, but Democrats pretty much unanimously support it. There's a reason for that.
In stark, partisan political terms, continuing the high level of immigration of recent decades, and certainly increasing immigration as envisioned by many reformers, will result in more Democrats winning more elections in coming years.
"The enormous flow of legal immigrants into the country 29.5 million from 1980 to 2012 has remade and continues to remake the nation's electorate in favor of the Democratic Party," concludes a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes comprehensive reform proposals like the Senate "Gang of Eight" bill. "As the immigrant population has grown, Republican electoral prospects have dimmed, even after controlling for alternative explanations of GOP performance."
In the report, author James Gimpel, a University of Maryland professor, looks at the immigrants who have come to the United States in recent decades and those likely to come in the future. Through a lot of complicated statistical analysis and close reading of previous studies, he comes to the same conclusion as anyone who has looked through exit polls in the last 30 years: Immigrants tend to vote Democratic.
A 2012 study of 2,900 foreign-born, naturalized immigrants cited in the report showed that about 62 percent identified themselves as Democrats, while 25 percent identified as Republicans, and 13 percent identified as independents. At this moment, according to the report, there are an estimated 8.7 million immigrants in the U.S. who are eligible for naturalization. Not all will become voting citizens, but somewhere between 50 percent and 60 percent will. And it's a sure bet that a majority will identify themselves as Democrats.
Gimpel cites several reasons why future immigration will likely mean more Democrats. The first is that "immigrants, particularly Hispanics and
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
In other news, water is wet!
The ridiculous thing is that we were having the exact same debate back in the early 1990’s, when the situation was nowhere near as bad and even California was still a Red leaning state.
Conservatives had a choice to follow Pat Buchanan and sane policies on immigration, the economy and foreign affairs, but most conservatives made the wrong choice and supported the Bushes, Jack Kemp, John McCain, Newt Gingrich and other open borders maniacs(who also had disastrous positions on other issues).
That’s what brought us to where we are today, folks.
The Catholic bishops in this country—the most vocal ones—are working with the Democrats to destroy the Republican Party and the pro-life movement.
Cardinal O’Malley and Archbishop Gomez have long histories of palling around with pro-abortion politicians—celebrating special Masses for them to “pray” for immigration “reform,” etc. It is becoming clearer and clearer that they are CONSCIOUSLY working to swamp the pro-life movement and other conservative causes with masses of immigrants.
Sheesh, it took’m this long to come to that conclusion?
America, your immigration policy has made you a goner.
Saw a pretty young woman and baby on the Walmart parking lot on Westheimer carrying a sign that she and the child were hungry. Upon asking where she was from, she said that she was from Romania and that was the extent of her English.
Who was it who said that after 2016, the Republican Party will become superfluous? Hell, after 2030, both the stupid and the nasty party will be outlawed by sharia.
From unionizing government, to Vietnam, to the 1965 Immigration Act, JFK was the end of us.
However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy. Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Bostons WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s. In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedys blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960. In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin. After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFKs legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies. Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.
agree good post
Boehner and other GOP members’ support for amnesty may seem odd in light of the fatal consequences for the GOP, however, when you realize their support is based on personal enrichment, it makes sense. They don’t care about the GOP nor do they even care for working Americans and the American Constitution. They see personal wealth that exceeds anything they could otherwise obtain. Simple, really. It is the same thing that powered such prominent GOP members as Arlen Specter. He cared nothing about the GOP nor the citizens of Penn or the US. He cared about Arlen. McCain is another case in point.
“I’m surprised the amnesty boosters within the GOPe manage to dress themselves, let alone find their way to Capitol Hill each day, as stupid as they apparently are. “
Couldn’t have said it better.
Moi aussi.
Bingo.
Another reason why I don’t buy the “Catholics are natural conservatives” argument.
They’re not. They never have been. Hasn’t mattered which wave of Catholic immigration is swamping the country - Italians, Irish, whatever.
Catholic doctrine is not conservative. Oh, they *pretend* to be conservative, but a look at any country where the clear majority of their population are Catholic shows that it is just not seen in the evidence.
So more immigrants, legal or not, mean MORE DEMOCRATS.
So the LOGICAL QUESTION is why can’t the Republican Leaders in the House figure that out?
The answer is that they hire a bunch of gay pollsters, who literally HATE THEM. They set up their polls and tell Boener and Cantor that the Republican Party MUST support AMNESTY, or they will go away.
But instead of FIRING these pollsters, they actually BELIEVE THEM.
Actually, the real teaching of the Church is conservative. Private property, economic liberty, no murdering of babies.
We have pro-abortion, socialist bishops. Dolan, Wuerl, O’Malley, Gomez, and many, many others.
Why do I say they are pro-abortion? Because they insist on giving Communion to pro-abortion “Catholics.” That is a clear signal that they are comfortable with the killing of millions of babies here and around the world.
The Catholic bishops are just bad Catholics. The crap they believe is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Catholicism as practiced is a form of Christian socialism.
The bishops and cardinals ARE the Catholic Church.
The sophistry you’re peddling is that there is some organ called “the Church” which is perfect, without sin and blameless.
This is a part of Catholic dogma.
We Protestants, on the other hand, recognize that churches are made up of people, and since humans are fallible, therefore churches can be, and are, fallible too.
The Catholic Church isn’t teaching anything by itself. The “teaching” of the Catholic Church is carried out by men in church offices, both high and low. If the ranking members of the Catholic hierarchy are preaching “X”, then the real teaching of the Church is “X,” because there is no other message being communicated other than “X.”
Exactly.
And when you have socialism, with or without the Christianity, you will have social non-conservatism that follows.
When there are no harsh financial repercussions for being lazy, getting pregnant out of wedlock, etc... guess what you’re going to get?
And as a bonus, we too will have an economy like the basket case countries of Italy, Spain, and the South American countries that enjoy Catholic hegemony over their political systems.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is contained in teaching documents issued by Popes and Ecumenical Councils.
The bishops of the Church are part of the Church; they are not “the Church.”
Currently, the vast majority of the bishops in the U.S. are faithless, stupid, cowardly, and corrupt. They teach a multitude of their personal, political opinions under the pretense that these things are the teaching of the Church.
But to get to your main claim: the “teaching of the Church” I mentioned is not imaginary. The teaching documents I referred to are public documents, accessible to all. They are all on the internet, as is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
"Infallible" does not mean blameless or without sin. It means "protected from teaching error."
If you believe that the church you belong to is capable of teaching error, then it cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ, because He promised that His Church would teach the truth He taught.
I learned a lot about Catholicism here in Chicago as I watched the priest homosexual molestation scandal unfold. Over and over again, Cardinal Bernadine turned a blind eye or accepted the most ludicrous excuses and let obvious pedophiles stay or moved them discretely.
It comes from their misplaced view of repentance. Confession and penance remit your sins and they let these guys get away with it. Bad doctrine leads to bad outcomes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.