Sorry GOP, There's Just One Problem With Your Huge Census Victory

Business Insider ^ | 12/21/2010 | Joe Weisenthal

[SeekAndFind]

Yes, more and more of the American population now lives in red states, and that will benefit the GOP in Congress and Presidential elections.

But while the map is getting redder, the red states themselves may are getting bluer, especially Texas, which was the huge winner with a net pickup of 4 seats.

This chart is from the state of Texas. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where the population growth has come from, and where it's going (hint: the growth is not coming from the GOP Anglo base). Note that if we're just talking white population, Texas has barely grown at all (and to the extent it has, it's been in Democrat-friendly cities like Dallas and Austin).

Other states are also shifting for similar reasons. They're not as big, but then the Congressional gains aren't nearly as dramatic.

[Will88]

All the census figures and projections include the illegal aliens within the US. Estimates are that around 1/3 of the Latinos in the US are illegal. If amnesty is not granted, and immigration law is enforced in the future, these projections will not come about as currently assumed.

And most know that is what the fight over comprehensive amnesty and the Dream Act and other amnesty schemes is all about.

[Mr. K]

Isn’t Texas planning a law like Arizona?

I would luike to see the trend line for Arizona since they passed this law

[RightOnTheBorder]

Liberals flee the open sewers they have created and then vote the same way in the conservative safe havens they invade.

[RobRoy]

I just got into some of his later stuff. I don’t agree with him as much as I used to.

[r9etb]

Our future will depend on the IDEOLOGY of this segment of our population.... will they become more conservative or liberal? The future of this nation is tied to the answer to this question.

You're quite correct. And what side of the ideological fence they come down on, is going to be driven to the way we go about trying to answer that question.

We could, I suppose, treat Hispanics as enemies -- many at FR seem to view them as such. Which will of course be counterproductive. The resultant conflict means that this inevitably growing demographic will end up in the Democrat camp, because there'd be no place else for them to go.

Or ... we could look for common ground, of which there's actually a fair amount, and deal with Hispanics as allies, if not exactly friends.

It's up to us.

[Tennessean4Bush]

Writer is deluding himself. This was a systemic realignment sweeping victory for the gop. In texas the gop owns huge margins in each branch and the gov ofc. Just like dems have done for 60 plus years - concentrate the opposing party in safe seats and the vast majority of other seats will be gop.

[The Comedian]

Yankees moving to God's country because they've so fouled their own liberal nest states.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[FlingWingFlyer]

What this shows is that the Mexico’s invasion of the Los Estados Unidos (Aztlan) is working.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Urbanization=liberalization=dhimmicrat drones

And in the non-urban hinterlands, Section 8 = liberalization = dhimmicrat drones

[Will88]

Or ... we could look for common ground, of which there's actually a fair amount, and deal with Hispanics as allies, if not exactly friends.

Does the common ground you seek include amnesty for all illegals in the US, or the so-called comprehensive immigration reform?

That issue will continue to be the primary issue related to the growth of the Latino population until the issue is settled, either by granting amnesty to millions, or by establishing a policy of no amnesty and strict enforcement in the future.

And the issue will be kept very much alive by the Hispanic interest groups and Dims looking for future voters. It can't be avoided.

[Gondring]

Of course they did. They included slaves and women.

But that doesn’t mean they meant to include foreigners.

Perhaps they did, but both in the original and in the 14th, it’s not clear-cut.

[skeeter]

We could, I suppose, treat Hispanics as enemies -- many at FR seem to view them as such.

You'll look at it however it suits you but the truth is many of us, who choose not to define our neighbors by their race, view illegal immigrants as an expensive & destructive nuisance.

[jimt]

I’m not at all concerned with the increase in the “hispanic” population - if they’re Americans.

I am deeply concerned with the increase in ILLEGAL ALIENS. I want them deported toute suite along with their anchor babies. These parasites, besides illegally voting, game every socialist program in the country, then work under the table. When I see them driving their anchor babies to school in NEW CARS for “free breakfast”, parking in front of their section 8 housing, buying junk food with their Lone Star cards, I get some VERY unfriendly feelings.

DEPORT THEM ALL - NOW !!!!!!!!!

[CharlesWayneCT]

So long as the aliens are illegal, or are all on work visas rather than working toward citizenship, it makes no difference, they just count for more votes.

It’s not like Texas almost went democrat this cycle or anything.

So, if one of the new seats goes democrat, and the other three go republican, that’s a net gain, given where those seats were taken from.

I’m assuming Texas has already played the gerrymander game as best they could, so I don’t expect to pick up seats that way.

[re_nortex]

Yankees moving to God's country because they've so fouled their own liberal nest states.

There are also those of us who were born in Yankee-land (Pennsylvania, in my case) who got so disgusted with Northern ways that we fled to the sane part of the country. The entrenched power of Democrat machine politics and the intransigence of corrupt big labor union bossism made me realize that I had no future in the Keystone State.

So, quite a few decades ago, I evaluated where I'd like to be and where I could prosper financially, culturally and politically. In fact, I wrote a Fortran-77 program to collate and analyze a number of metrics. Texas came out with the overall best numbers.

But before fleeing Pennsylvania, I was proud to leave my mark having busted a labor union. My actions led to a decertification election -- a rare thing in big labor stronghold.

I'll also add that I took measures to leave as many Yankee traits behind. I worked hard to lose lingering traces of my Western Pennsylvania accent and cut all ties with the state. I dropped my rooting for the Steelers in favor of the Cowboys (and was proud when Dallas beat Pittsburgh in Super Bowl XXX). And I always liked Country music and Southern Gospel (which we actually had not access to not far away in Wheeling, WV).

In short, I fully assimilated and consider myself a Texan -- having made a decision to move here and adopt Texas ways and spurning any Yankee-isms. Yes, I wish I could have been born here but I really had no control over that.

[MrB]

But the electoral votes are winner take all.

[ansel12]

I’m not sure if I see the connection between staying Catholic and being liberal.

How can you not?

Your (and all conservatives) concern was about the Hispanic vote because it is so liberal and Democrat and they are taking over America, but I showed you that Protestant Hispanics are actually about a 50/50 vote, it is only Catholic Hispanics that are the liberal, Democrat voters that we are all concerned about, when they become Protestant, the problem goes away.

[lentulusgracchus]

Chris Bell and the Pravda Media then proclaimed that the last redistricting was "unfair" .....

...... something the ink-stained LeftRats didn't complain about when it was Gov. Ann "Silverfoot" Richards and the uber-liberal Rep. Martin Frost of Dallas who "redistricted" (gerrymandered) Texas in 1981 and 1991.

That gerrymander was okey-dokey, all fair and stuff, that made a joke out of Texas representation in the Congress all through the 1990's.

[ansel12]

In short, I fully assimilated and consider myself a Texan That is the way of Texas, it is about where your loyalties lie, remember the Alamo.

[Lurking Libertarian]

A ridiculous and completely untenable position. Please actually read the congressional debate over the 14th Amendment in Congress, in which it is made very clear that the persons counted are not intended to be people in the United States illegally.

Can you point me to such debates?

And more to this: In the only clarifying cases on this issue ever adjudicated by the Supreme Court, the Court made it clear that the definition of US persons in Amendment XIV was intended only to include those "subject to its jurisdiction," which does not include illegals, Indians, or the children of foriegn nationals not intending to remain in the United States.

That is doubly wrong: first, the cases you are talking about were construing the citizenship provision of section 1, not the apportionment provision of section 2. Section 2 doesn't say anything about "subject to the jurisdiction"; it says "the whole number of persons", which means "the whole number of persons." Second, even if we were talking about section 1, there is no Supreme Court case that says that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If they weren't, they couldn't be prosecuted for illegal entry (like diplomats, who are truly "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they have diplomatic immunity).

I thought we supported the Constitution here on FR; I guess some people only support the parts of it they find temporarily convenient.