The GOP gave blacks their first congressmen and senators. That lasted 60 years.
Still, for all the demographics you and Huntington put out there, the fact is that Hispanics are "Americanizing" at much faster rates than Scandinavians in the 1800s or Germans in the early 1900s. We've been through this before.
I don't believe in "lifetime" Democrats or "lifetime" Republicans: I've seen too many people who said they'd never vote one way or another change their mind (and often, their position permanently) with the right candidate or, more importantly, the right issue.
That is the past and unlikely to be repeated given demographic trends. The only way Reps may be able to attract more black votes is the growing friction among blacks and Hispanics as they compete for unskilled labor jobs. What is remarkable about blacks is their attitude toward immigration, which more closely mirrors the non-Hispanic white view. I attended not too long ago a seminar put on by Brookings about the media's coverage of immigration. The panel, including Marvin Kalb and E.J. Dionne, expressed some amazement that blacks thought much like whites when it came to immigration issues.
Professor Huntington said something similar four years earlier when discussing the transformation of Miami: "The Hispanization of Miami is without precedent in the history of U.S. cities. The economic growth of Miami, led by the early Cuban immigrants, made the city a magnet for migrants from other Latin American and Caribbean countries. By 2000, two thirds of Miami's people were Hispanic, and more than half were Cuban or of Cuban descent. In 2000, 75.2 percent of adult Miamians spoke a language other than English at home, compared to 55.7 percent of the residents of Los Angeles and 47.6 percent of New Yorkers. (Of Miamians speaking a non-English language at home, 87.2 percent spoke Spanish.) In 2000, 59.5 percent of Miami residents were foreign-born, compared to 40.9 percent in Los Angeles, 36.8 percent in San Francisco, and 35.9 percent in New York. In 2000, only 31.1 percent of adult Miami residents said they spoke English very well, compared to 39.0 percent in Los Angeles, 42.5 percent in San Francisco, and 46.5 percent in New York.
The Cuban and Hispanic dominance of Miami left Anglos (as well as blacks) as outside minorities that could often be ignored. Unable to communicate with government bureaucrats and discriminated against by store clerks, the Anglos came to realize, as one of them put it, “My God, this is what it's like to be the minority.” The Anglos had three choices. They could accept their subordinate and outsider position. They could attempt to adopt the manners, customs, and language of the Hispanics and assimilate into the Hispanic community—“acculturation in reverse,” as the scholars Alejandro Portes and Alex Stepick labeled it. Or they could leave Miami, and between 1983 and 1993, about 140,000 did just that, their exodus reflected in a popular bumper sticker: “Will the last American to leave Miami, please bring the flag.”
Still, for all the demographics you and Huntington put out there, the fact is that Hispanics are "Americanizing" at much faster rates than Scandinavians in the 1800s or Germans in the early 1900s. We've been through this before.
That just isn't true. And the numbers are far different than those early waves of immigration. The USG did not try to accommodate these earlier groups by teaching in their languages, providing ballots in their langages, or issuing USG publications in their language.
Huntington: Dual-language programs, which go one step beyond bilingual education, have become increasingly popular. In these programs, students are taught in both English and Spanish on an alternating basis with a view to making English-speakers fluent in Spanish and Spanish-speakers fluent in English, thus making Spanish the equal of English and transforming the United States into a two-language country. Then U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley explicitly endorsed these programs in his March 2000 speech, “Excelencia para Todos—Excellence for all.” Civil rights organizations, church leaders (particularly Catholic ones), and many politicians (Republican as well as Democrat) support the impetus toward bilingualism."
Perhaps equally important, business groups seeking to corner the Hispanic market support bilingualism as well. Indeed, the orientation of U.S. businesses to Hispanic customers means they increasingly need bilingual employees; therefore, bilingualism is affecting earnings. Bilingual police officers and firefighters in southwestern cities such as Phoenix and Las Vegas are paid more than those who only speak English. In Miami, one study found, families that spoke only Spanish had average incomes of $18,000; English-only families had average incomes of $32,000; and bilingual families averaged more than $50,000. For the first time in U.S. history, increasing numbers of Americans (particularly black Americans) will not be able to receive the jobs or the pay they would otherwise receive because they can speak to their fellow citizens only in English.
In the debates over language policy, the late California Republican Senator S.I. Hayakawa once highlighted the unique role of Hispanics in opposing English. “Why is it that no Filipinos, no Koreans object to making English the official language? No Japanese have done so. And certainly not the Vietnamese, who are so damn happy to be here. They're learning English as fast as they can and winning spelling bees all across the country. But the Hispanics alone have maintained there is a problem. There [has been] considerable movement to make Spanish the second official language.”
In the mid-19th century, English speakers from the British Isles dominated immigration into the United States. The pre-World War I immigration was highly diversified linguistically, including many speakers of Italian, Polish, Russian, Yiddish, English, German, Swedish, and other languages. But now, for the first time in U.S. history, half of those entering the United States speak a single non-English language."
I don't believe in "lifetime" Democrats or "lifetime" Republicans: I've seen too many people who said they'd never vote one way or another change their mind (and often, their position permanently) with the right candidate or, more importantly, the right issue.
I was born in 1943. I have seen the Dems hold the House for 40 years straight and 58 out of 62 years from the period 1933 to 1995. I have also witnessed the rapid change in demographics that have changed the face of this country and increased its population from 151 million in 1950 to 305 million today, a doubling of the population in 58 years with most of the increase due to immigration. We will add another 162 million in the next 50 years, with about 105 million coming from immigration. If we have an amnesty, we could be a nation of half a billion by 2050.
In a decade, one in 7 residents of this country will be an immigrant, the highest in our history, and by 2050 one in 5 will be an immigrant. This country cannot assimilate those kinds of numbers and retain a national identity and culture. If you are going to look back in history, check out the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the days of the McKinley administration and the reaction of Congress and labor, which essentially shut down most immigration starting in the 1920s until the 1960s, which was helped by the Great Depression that caused immigrants to return home or not come at all.
Regardless of how the politicians try to spin what is happening, there is going to be a major blowback from the American people on immigration. The Reps need to hold to their principles on this issue, i.e., the rule of law. And we need to take the lead on immigration legislation that will reduce the numbers from 1.2 million to 300,000 annually per the Jordan Commission report of the 90s, eliminate birthright citizenship, go to a merit based system, and limit chain migration to the nuclear family. If an amnesty is passed, the political landscape of this country will be rearranged with many Dem blue collar whites and blacks seeking to align themselves with the Rep position on immigration, which is the defining issue of our time and will chart the future of this country.