Rubio, Senate ‘Gang of Eight’ unveil bipartisan immigration deal (Amnesty, H-1B Visas DOUBLED!)

Miami Herald ^ | 1/28/13 | MARC CAPUTO

[SoFloFreeper]

You really seem to be ignoring the need to convince Hispanic voters that conservatism is better than liberalism.

Look at what has happened to California. In a way, that is where ALL of America is going demographically....and if conservatives don’t market their point of view to that changing audience of voters it will be doomed.

I suggest all the wrist slitters here on FR wake up and smell the coffee. We have a good case—one that provides better answers than the Democrats—but it needs to be presented in a more appealing way.

[kabar]

Look at what has happened to California. In a way, that is where ALL of America is going demographically....and if conservatives don’t market their point of view to that changing audience of voters it will be doomed.

I suggest all the wrist slitters here on FR wake up and smell the coffee. We have a good case—one that provides better answers than the Democrats—but it needs to be presented in a more appealing way.

You are suffering from delusion. Yes, by 2050 the US will have roughly the same demographics as California. And we will suffer the same electoral fate. The Dems are in control because the voters of CA like their message and reject ours. They favor big government and the welfare state. And why not?

Hispanics have a school drop out rate of close to 50% and the out of wedlock birth rate is also 50%. This is the social pathology for failure in our society. Immigrants and minorities are disproportionately on welfare. They want more benefits, not less.

The Republicans’ Hispanic Delusion Amnesty is not just wrong in principle, it’s bad politics.

“But Hispanics are Republicans waiting to emerge,” counter the Bush strategists. Socially conservative on homosexuality and abortion, Hispanics just need to be invited into the party by an amnesty and not scared off by immigration enforcement. This “social values” argument has been around since the early 1980s, and it’s still awaiting confirmation. The majority of Hispanics vote their perceived economic interests, rather than their social values (evangelical Hispanics may be an exception to this rule). Blacks are equally conservative on gay rights and other favorite liberal crusades, and that doesn’t affect their allegiance to the Democratic party."

Milton Friedman said that, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We have both. Since the 1965 Immigration Act, the die has been cast. We have drastically altered our electorate demographically. It has consequences.

The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born. Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in a net immigration of 1.25 million.

Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 315 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by an additional 130 million to 445 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration.

The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached 40 million in 2010, the highest number in our history. The U.S. immigrant population has doubled since 1990, nearly tripled since 1980, and quadrupled since 1970, when it stood at 9.7 million. Of the 40 million immigrants in the country in 2010, 13.9 million arrived in 2000 or later making it the highest decade of immigration in American history, even though there was a net loss of jobs during the decade.

Growth in the immigrant population has primarily been driven by high levels of legal immigration. Roughly three-fourths of immigrants in the country are here legally. With nearly 12 million immigrants, Mexico was by far the top immigrant-sending country, accounting for 29 percent of all immigrants and 29 percent of growth in the immigrant population from 2000 to 2010. The median age of immigrants in 2010 was 41.4 compared to 35.9 for natives.

87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2042, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.

In 2012 Romney won about 60% of the white vote, but this was offset with Obama winning 93% of the black vote and more than 70% of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Demography is destiny.

In 1970, non-Hispanic whites comprised 89 percent of the population; today they are 66 percent; and by 2042, they will be 50 percent. The Democrats, under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, have forged a political coalition that depends on individuals coalescing around racial and ethnic identities rather than the issues. The continuing and increasing flow of minority immigrants, mostly poor and uneducated, provides a natural constituency for the Democrats, which see them as their principal source of political power.

[Cheerio]

Although not a lawyer - and certainly not an immigration or constitutional lawyer - I have argued for five years on FR that it is all about the TWO parents, not whether he was born in HI or not. But the GOP is not called the stupid party for nothing. Remember this clown......Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice - first in the primary elections and again in the general election. (Sen Martinez "Rino"-Florida)

[CatherineofAragon]

"You really seem to be ignoring the need to convince Hispanic voters that conservatism is better than liberalism.

Look at what has happened to California. In a way, that is where ALL of America is going demographically....and if conservatives don’t market their point of view to that changing audience of voters it will be doomed.

I suggest all the wrist slitters here on FR wake up and smell the coffee. We have a good case—one that provides better answers than the Democrats—but it needs to be presented in a more appealing way."

Wrist-slitters? Are they anything like purists?

Ideally, the way to reap more of the Hispanic vote would be uncompromising explanation of conservative principles. But in reality, the Hispanic population is interested not in principles, but in freebies, government benefits. You seem to be in denial about that.

In essence you're saying that the only thing left is to trash our principles and become Democrats ourselves. To win elections, we have to reward lawbreakers and welcome them as citizens, even though the resulting demographics will be the death of the country and a permanent Democrat majority. If you want to assist in that kind of thing, be my guest, but I won't. And I'm not slitting my wrists over it. God's in control....let it go where He wills.

You might want to think about where we'll end up on that slippery slope you're advocating, though. What happens when the GOP decides we need to "reach out" to the female vote by embracing abortion? I've already seen a couple of voices here at FR saying we need to shut up about abortion because we'll never win elections otherwise. The memo's been written up, but the GOP isn't sure how to implement it yet. Will you go along with that, too?

What happens when it's decided we need to reach out to sodomites? Most Republicans are already so petrified of queers that they absolutely refuse to mention the subject. Do you think it'll be long before the Republican party as a whole embraces sodomite marriage?

If that's what it takes to win elections, count me out.

[skeeter]

We have a good case—one that provides better answers than the Democrats—but it needs to be presented in a more appealing way.

Good luck marketing a message of limited government, self reliance and inalienable rights to 20 million new illiterate poor non-english speaking voters.

[SoFloFreeper]

You totally misunderstand and misrepresent my point of view.

You’ve offered nothing but disdain for an entire race of people, and seem to offer no real hope.

That is what I mean by wrist slitters.

[SoFloFreeper]

You make some good points. The Milton Friedman quote hits home.

I do believe a better strategery aimed at the Hispanic, and yes, black population, will peel enough voters away from the ‘rats to put a conservative government in charge.

But sometimes I think we shoot ourselves in the foot by race-based anger.

[kabar]

But sometimes I think we shoot ourselves in the foot by race-based anger.

Any time someone actually uses facts about immigration, legal and illegal, they are called bigots, nativists, and racists.

The immigration issue has deeply divided the Republican Party. President Bush and Presidential nominee McCain supported amnesty bills (Hagel-Martinez in 2006 and McCain-Kennedy in 2007) against the majority of their own party. Moreover, we had the sorry spectacle of people like Karl Rove and Lindsey Graham castigating their fellow Republicans [read Conservatives] who opposed amnesty using such epithets as bigots, racists, and nativists. These criticisms just reinforce the Democrat branding of the GOP and alienate minorities who perceive that they are not welcome in the party. Moreover, being branded as a “racist” political party hurts the GOP in recruiting new members, regardless of race or ethnicity. America is not a racist country and no one wants to be associated with a racist organization.

The best strategy is treating everyone the same and not pandering. The irony is that immigration can be a winning issue for conservatives and Republicans. Our views on immigration actually coincide with those of the majority of the American people. We need not be apologetic or defensive. Republicans must be more proactive and less reactive. They must be willing to take a principled stand on the issue even if it means polarization, being the object of demagoguery, and possible short-term political losses. Unless the GOP redefines the battlefield and terms of engagement, they will continue to lose the war.

The Republican strategy on immigration should be based on the core conservative principles of the party, i.e., national security, limited government, the rule of law and the Constitution, and individual responsibility. Immigration is an issue that cuts across partisan lines. There are plenty of independents and Reagan Democrats who are affected adversely by immigration and hold far different views than the Democrat political leadership, union bosses, religious leaders, etc. Republicans need to articulate their message better to tap into those constituencies. That said, pandering and outreach to minorities don’t work. Republicans lose when they try to play identity politics against the Democrats and it just reinforces their framing of the issue. Republicans must appeal to the interests of the individual voter with a universal message regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender.

Ronald Reagan, in his famous 1975 speech at CPAC, said,

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness. I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party"-- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

[SoFloFreeper]

You’re saying a lot of truth...and yes, it did deeply divide the party.

What you’re talking about—the broad appeal for sensible immigration—is exactly the kind of marketing (for lack of a better word) we need.

I never called you a bigot or racist, by the way. I have seen it here—someone just told me Hispanics “don’t care” about the law. Pretty sad.

[CatherineofAragon]

"You’ve offered nothing but disdain for an entire race of people, and seem to offer no real hope.

That is what I mean by wrist slitters."

Disdain? For people who think they have a right to come here illegally? You're damned right I have disdain for them, and plenty of it. I won't hesitate to say so just because their skin is brown. We weren't discussing "an entire race", but those who are here illegally, so let's keep it accurate.

"Hope" for you seems to lie in the race-pandering of the GOP, and in veiled accusations of racism when presented with simple facts, so maybe these Democratic-type solutions will suit you. Have at them.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Ten million Americans with STEM educations are unemployed, or underemployed outside their fields of study.

We do not need one single H-1B visa worker anywhere in the USA.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't further fatten corporate wallets by reducing the American standard of living to that of the Third World?! Commie!

[kabar]

Amnesty is not the way to get more Hispanic, Asian, or black votes. It will just create more Dem voters and fracture the Rep base.

[BobL]

“Wrong. Boner already has 200 Democrat votes for Amnesty and 35 or so RINO votes too. He only needs 218 votes to pass amnesty. Amnesty is a done deal in the House according to Boner. He doesn’t need more than 18 RINOs to pass it since he already has 200 Democrat votes on his side. “

You seem in a BIG HURRY to give up. That would be the strategy of a TROLL, but I won’t accuse you of being such (just yet).

The FACT is that the Dems had a much stronger Amnesty majority in BOTH the House and Senate in Obama’s first two years and STILL didn’t do anything.

So instead of trying to DEMORALIZE us FReepers before things have even begun, how about you join the fight, or just shut up. We have enough on our plates just dealing with the media.

[lodi90]

You seem in a BIG HURRY to give up. That would be the strategy of a TROLL, but I won’t accuse you of being such (just yet).

---

You seem to have a short memory. The GOP leadership in Congress has a sorry record recently. Until proven otherwise, this is the fiscal cliff fiasco all over again.

Boehner will allow a vote on amnesty and then hide under his desk.

Reason being is that they really do want amnesty and the payola that comes with it. Have for quite some time. Now the time is right for them to slip this through. They think we will forgive and forget because of gun control, etc., etc.

[BobL]

“Reason being is that they really do want amnesty and the payola that comes with it. Have for quite some time. Now the time is right for them to slip this through. They think we will forgive and forget because of gun control, etc., etc.”

So you also support Amnesty? Why else tell us to give up without a fight?

I understand that there are elements within the Republican Party that support Amnesty, just like there were elements supporting Romney in the Primaries, but ON THIS SITE they weren’t welcome - that is the people telling us that Romney’s a DONE DEAL, so why fight it. They were right in the end, in that case - but doesn’t mean we should throw in the towel before without trying.

So far on Amnesty, you guys HAVE BEEN WRONG three times now, twice under Bush, and once under Pelosi. In other words, despite your hopes, NOTHING HAS PASSED. I realize the temptation for a cheap supply of legal labor, but take it to another site, please.