Posted on 01/15/2004 7:07:05 AM PST by cricket
January 15, 2004 -- PRESIDENT Bush's im- migration/amnesty proposal will probably be remembered in history as the idea that saved a political party. By taking the lead in extending the benefits of legal protections to more than 10 million illegal immigrants now living in the United States, Bush has taken a bold and dramatic step to avert the extinction of his own party.
Until Bush acted, the grinding inevitability of demographic change was likely to doom the GOP to an early death. As America became 1 percent more Hispanic each year, the Republicans could not concede this growing group to the Democrats by 2-1 ratios without risking total annihilation down the road.
The Republicans have got to break the solid demographic phalanx that sustains the Democratic Party: Blacks, Hispanics and single white women. Together, this group cast 25 percent of votes in 1990, 32 percent in 2000 and will account for 40 percent in 2008.
But by embracing the cause of Hispanic immigrants and extending to them elemental civil rights and minimum-wage protections, Bush has struck a blow on their behalf that will resonate in their voting habits for generations to come.
His legislative proposals are akin to the sponsorship of a sweeping civil-rights bill in 1963-65 by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and will have a similar effect in binding Hispanics to the Republicans as the civil-rights legislation did in linking blacks to the Democrats.
For decades, Republicans systematically alienated Hispanics by insisting on English-only initiatives, opposing benefits for illegal immigrants and demanding an end even to free public schools for the children of those who came here illegally. These measures drove Hispanics into the waiting arms of Democrats. Bush has now acted to reverse the legacy of these initiatives and to welcome Hispanics into the GOP.
As Catholic voters, who take their religion seriously, Hispanics are a natural Republican constituency. Recent data that closely links the frequency of church attendance to party-voting habits supports the theory that this very religious voting group is likely to adhere to the Republican Party once its platform stops repelling them at every turn.
Republican efforts to win black voters have proven largely fruitless. Even the appointment of blacks to the two top jobs in the Bush foreign policy apparatus has failed to generate any significant African-American support for Bush in the polls. But candidates who appeal to the Hispanic vote - Gov. Pataki in New York, Gov. Rick Perry in Texas and the Bushes in Florida and Texas - have shown a real ability to get large shares of Hispanic voters.
As Hispanics follow the traditional paths of upward mobility that immigrant groups have trod before them, they are likely to lean more and more toward the Republicans - just as Irish and Italians do these days, abandoning the Democratic orientation of their ancestors.
Hispanics hold the key to the political outcomes in many major states. California, Texas and Florida are heavily influenced by their participation as are New York, New Jersey and Illinois. These are the key battleground states that hold the balance of power between the parties.
Apart from the politics of the issue, the merits also dictate the Bush initiative. America has 4 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of its wealth. It is incumbent on us to open our doors to those who seek upward mobility.
The only thing standing between subsistence and starvation in Mexico, and much of Central America, is the money sent home to needy families by hard working men and women in the United States who tend our gardens, wash our dishes and clean our floors. It is not American workers who they are putting out of jobs, it is American robots. The alternative to their low wage work is not American labor but machines.
The United States needs the skills, energy, savvy and willingness to work hard of our illegal immigrants. They are illegal only because our laws have been nativist and short-sighted. Now Bush is setting them right.
In addition, there are a litany of other facts on that website. Can you respond to any of them?
This is a silly statement since true Christians believe Jesus is God. Therefore, since Bush calls himself a Christian, his statement is irreconilable to true and historic Christian belief. No way around it. You can't win this point so move on.
gubamyster has already provided sources here are some more. The pros and cons are easy to find with google and searches here at Free Republic. Depends upon what is meant by "primary beneficiaries?" Is that the problem?
BTW, www.cis.org has an About page and google can be used to establish their credibility. You will find them used by the mainstream media for example as well as conservative groups. google for, "Center for Immigration Studies".
Here is one source for stats. There are studies for most immigrant groups. This one is for immigrants from Mexico the group that's most numerous and talked about. The Center for Immigration Studies' report at
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/mexico.pdf
"Even after welfare reform, welfare use among Mexican immigrant households remains much higher than that of natives. An estimated 33.9 percent of households headed by legal Mexican immigrants and 24.9 percent of those headed by illegal Mexican immigrants used at least one major welfare program. In contrast, 14.8 percent of native households used welfare. Moreover, Mexican immigrant welfare use remains much higher than that of natives, even among Mexican immigrants who have lived in the United States for many years (see Figure 1)." [end excerpt]
googling, immigrants welfare, turns up hundreds of thousands of hits. The above is one. Some other immigrant groups have similar stats. It's been discussed pro and con here in the past. google,
immigrants welfare site:www.freerepublic.com
Dave S, You referred to Congressman Tancredo as a bigot. Do you have sources that suggest that in fact he is a bigot? TIA.
Perhaps if you took the time to clearly read. The link on this thread linked to a post on another thread. That post had 2 links. One to the Stix article & another to a CIS article. Please follow directions.
Your links in #37 that you are so proud of go to a four year old article by the White Supremisist Stix...
Do you have any source for this claim?
and a chart that someone posted.
You must not have looked closely at the chart & the footnotes, because it clearly references CIS.
I still dont see squat by your Center for Immigration Studies and who they hell are they, a guy with an address and a fax machine?
Your lack of knowledge of CIS proves your lack of knowledge or research into immigration (both illegal & legal) matters. Perhaps you should spend some time at their site before further exposing shallowness on the subject.
What type of logic are you using to reach this preposterous conclusion from the below facts?
"Even after welfare reform, welfare use among Mexican immigrant households remains much higher than that of natives. An estimated 33.9 percent of households headed by legal Mexican immigrants and 24.9 percent of those headed by illegal Mexican immigrants used at least one major welfare program. In contrast, 14.8 percent of native households used welfare. Moreover, Mexican immigrant welfare use remains much higher than that of natives, even among Mexican immigrants who have lived in the United States for many years (see Figure 1)." [end excerpt]
Conscientious Americans have slowed or stopped reproducing, the illegals contribute about 1/2 million babies a year here, sure solid voting base. Funny how all the Latino's in Chicago are democrats though.
Is this really what Republicanism has come down to? Basing policy on "demographic phalanxes"?
Yes he did because Ozzie was the news, the buzz. More people were there to see ozzie than Bush. He spiced up his presentation by playing to Ozzie. It was obvious that Ozzie was going to play.
Thanks for the very interesting article. Bookmarked for future reference.
I already did, exmarine with short memory. Bush did not invite Ozzie Osbourne to anything much less to the White House for Dinner. Article on home page of this "fantastic" website reports that Bush did...and that rumour popped up over two years ago. I will say it again, the blonde reporter from Fox invited Osbourne to a White House Correspondents Dinner (that is the White House reporters) that was held at a Washington area hotel. Thousands of people in attendance as it was a fund raiser for charity. Only two connections to the White House: 1) The reporters, and 2) the President is invited to attend to be roasted and then he speaks. But its not Bush's Dinner. Its not the White House and Bush doesnt invite anyone. Those things are called facts, not the rumour and half truth that your fundi website presents.
Explain the Triune God? If you can, then you're superior to all the worlds theologians. If thats the case maybe you are God, heh?
So what if the Muslims dont accept Christ literally as God, some Christians dont. Also Jews are supposed to believe in the same God as the Christians and they dont accept Jesus...so are you saying that when they address their father they are talking to the wind and nothing else.
Perhaps you should convince me that they have even as much credibility as La Raza. All it takes these days is a telephone number and a fax machine and you are 501-c3.
So if you build a better "mousetrap" they will come? Bull. You dont just enunicate your principles and expect them to be communicated by the press. You have to advertise via paid media and you have to pick places to visit and issues to push. You dont just say Im for limited government and the world will rush to your door. You have to pick out your target audiences that you want to reach, you have to select your message, you have to determine how to reach this market and you have to determine which issues have salience to the group that you are attempting to reach (e.g., you dont spend your limited time discussing the need for elimination of the AMT to a group of low income senior citizens).
Good point; and Morris no doubt frames his reference from his Democrat orientation.
May be naive here, but actually think Bush is framing this first, from what he thinks is the better and 'higher' perspective ie first, from doing what he thinks is right and right for America.
He would rather tackle this than for the Dems taking their turn at it; which in the end would prove to be a sinister, corrupted approach. . .designed, from their perspective, no doubt as a guarantee for the Hispanic vote.
So while I do not think Bush is doing this at least, first and foremost, for the Hispanic vote; he certainly is aware of the political possibilities.
He certainly recognizes as well, that there are no guarantees this will serve Republican interests and should this get passed; he knows it will not serve Republican politics exclusively.
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.