So what are they today?
A large part of why immigrants voted for Democrats in the past was machine politics and patronage jobs, not only people like Boss Tweed but Frank "I am the Law" Hague. I have family that lived in Hague's Jersey City and they know he was a crook but he also maintained law and order and seemed to take care of people
I grew up in Jersey City in the 40s and 50s. My grandfather was a ward healer for Hague and my mother worked at Margret Hague hospital where I was born. We received our free turkey from the Mayor every Thanksgiving. Yes, the old political machines took care of the people despite being corrupt. The Daley machine in Chicago is still based on that model.
Earlier waves of immigrants in the period you mentioned a moment ago were, for the most part, not fleeing countries with helpful paternalistic governments that benefitted them. They were often trying to get out and start over.
European socialism was a reality. In the 1920 election, 38% of the Jewish vote went to Eugene Debs.
I don't think they are normal but I think they happen and I think they get tolerated here a lot more than they used to. And it only takes one drop of crap to spoil the soup. Best to keep it as far away as possible.
Care to provide a few examples.
In some ways, they've switched what they stand for and in others, they don't. And there is a reason why the Dixiecrats shifted parties, which makes the arguments about Democrats being bigger opponents of civil rights pretty absurd because many of those Democrats became Republicans. And going back to Jefferson, the Democrats were started by the anti-Federalists and it was their opponents who favored a strong central government.
I grew up in Jersey City in the 40s and 50s. My grandfather was a ward healer for Hague and my mother worked at Margret Hague hospital where I was born. We received our free turkey from the Mayor every Thanksgiving. Yes, the old political machines took care of the people despite being corrupt. The Daley machine in Chicago is still based on that model.
Both of my parents were from Jersey City and I'm told my maternal grandfather tried to register Republican because he was mad at someone and they "lost" his voter information. You'd think if they were assured of victory, they wouldn't have run such crooked elections.
European socialism was a reality. In the 1920 election, 38% of the Jewish vote went to Eugene Debs.
Are we talking about the Jewish vote or immigrants in general? I suspect that intellectualism combined with a long history of being outsiders is a factor there. Socialism promises to take care of everyone (the irony being that when put into practice, it treats people like expendible cogs in a machine).
Care to provide a few examples.
I already gave one, holding up Randy Weaver as a hero. I understand there are legitimate reasons why he's used as a icon but the mainstream understanding is that he was a white supremacist so to the typical person, it looks like people are Free Republic are holding up a white supremacist as a hero. Anyone wanting to make Free Republic look racist could bring up those quotes. A more overt example is the "let's make fun of the Obama's because they are black" threads full of jokes and pictures from black sitcoms whether they bear any resemblance to the Obama's or not. Also the "Michele Obama is ugly", etc. threads.
There are also the people who mock black English, quite a few threads emphasizing black on white crime (and I've seen people assume a white perpetrator was black simply because their race wasn't given), and the various people who go out of their way to post pictures of the people involved in various crimes and other nastiness, who are always black or hispanic. If you want examples, I can dig around for some, though some of the worst comments do get deleted by the moderators.
A good example of how this can play out in the mainstream media is Jerome Corsci who helped author Unfit for Command (about Kerry's swift boat issues). People figured out his screen name on Free Republic and pulled out a series of characterizations that look pretty bigoted, thus helping to discredit him. Here is another example. And here. And another. Are those sources suspect? Of course they are, but the statements that they quote speak for themselves and do not look good at all.