Amnesty won't turn Hispanics into Republicans

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/20/am...o-republicans/

Originally Posted by Ann Coulter

Don't anyone tell Marco Rubio, John McCain or Jeff Flake that nearly 80 percent of Hindus voted for Obama, or who knows what they'll come up with.

I understand the interest of business lobbies in getting cheap, unskilled labor through amnesty, but why do Republican officeholders want to create up to 20 million more Democratic voters, especially if it involves flouting the law? Are the campaign donations from the soulless rich more important than actual voters?

Without citing any evidence, the Rubio Republicans simply assert that granting 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens amnesty will make Hispanics warm to the GOP. Yes, that's worked like a charm since Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986!

True, Romney lost the Hispanic vote, but so did John McCain, the original Rubio. (McCain lost Hispanics by 67 percent compared to 71 percent who voted against Romney.)

President George H.W. Bush created "diversity visas," massively increased legal immigration and eliminated the English requirement on the naturalization test. In the 1992 election, he won 25 percent of the Hispanic vote - less than what Romney got.

Although Hispanic politicians, spokesmen and TV networks benefit from Rubio's mass legalization scheme, there's no evidence that Hispanic voters care very much about it.

Amnesty never shows up in polls as a top concern of Hispanics. It's a top concern of employers, not workers - which isn't going to do much to help Republicans shed that "Party of the Rich" image. After Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, unemployment among Hispanics skyrocketed when, suddenly, there was increased competition for low-skill jobs. That's precisely why businesses want amnesty, not because of their deep concern for the plight of the underclass.

How's this for an idea: Why don't Republicans remind Hispanic voters that the more low-skilled immigrants who are admitted, the lower their wages will be? That at least has the virtue of being untried.

Whatever it is that makes Hispanics love Obama, it's not amnesty. He double-crossed Hispanics on amnesty; in the words of Univision's Jorge Ramos, "You promised [amnesty], and a promise is a promise and with all due respect, you didn't keep that promise." Obama still won 71 percent of their vote.

Indeed, almost alone among demographic groups, the Hispanic vote increased for Obama from 2008 to 2012. Protestants, Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, men, whites, white women - even single women - all voted in larger percentages for Romney than they had for McCain.

Only Hispanics and Asians increased their vote for Obama. Coincidentally, these have been our two largest immigrant groups over the last several decades. (It's sort of touching that Democrats couldn't get Americans to vote for them, so they had to bring in new voters from other countries to start winning elections again. Immigrants really are doing the job Americans just won't do.)

The canard about Hispanics being "natural conservatives" comes from the same cliche machine that gave us the one about blacks being "natural conservatives." At least blacks really are social conservatives - they just vote Democratic, anyway.

As Charles Murray has pointed out, Hispanics are less likely to go to church or be employed than non-Hispanics. They are less opposed to gay marriage than everyone else - 44 percent compared to 50 percent. (By contrast, 55 percent of African-Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a 2012 Washington Post/ABC poll - even more, according to how they vote.)

Nor, unfortunately, do Hispanic immigrants become more Republican the longer they've been here, as some Republicans claim without bothering to see if it's true.

To the contrary, they get more liberal. Cubans used to vote Republican nearly as reliably as Mormons. In 2012, 49 percent of Cubans voted for Obama.

Will amnesty win the Cubans back? I don't think so: They already get amnesty under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act. Same with Puerto Ricans, who are automatic American citizens.

Trying to appeal to Hispanics with amnesty would be like trying to win over baseball fans by shouting "Go Yankees!" at a Mets game. Except that would at least capture some baseball fans.

It's not clear that amnesty wins any Hispanics, apart from the ones who can't vote (because they're illegal) and their ethnic "spokesmen," whose power increases as the Hispanic population grows.

So why do Hispanics vote Democratic? Like most legal immigrants since Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, Hispanic immigrants are poor. The poverty rate of second-generation Hispanics is lower than the first - but the third generation's poverty rate is higher than the second.

Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Hispanics have the highest illegitimate birthrate in the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2010, for every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women, 80.6 had children out of wedlock, compared to 65.3 for unmarried black women and 29 for unmarried white women.

If Republicans think we can have mass amnesty for millions of government-dependent immigrants and become a more libertarian country, they're crazy.

This isn't because of a failure to "reach out." Republicans can't beat Democrats at the government assistance game. From single mothers to corporate subsidy-takers, they want your money and the Democrats promise to give it to them.

Instead of trying to compete with the ethnic lobbies, welfare schemes and racialized politics of the Democrats, perhaps Republicans should allow our immigration system to admit more immigrants who won't immediately go on government assistance, as 60 percent of new immigrants do now.

Putting 12 million to 20 million of them on a "path to citizenship" won't make them like Republicans; it will make Republicans lose.

60% immediately on government assistance? wowza!

Ann Coulter, the female Alex Jones. I only bothered to read the bold. I have more important things to read besides Ann. But I find this comical:

From single mothers to corporate subsidy-takers, they want your money and the Democrats promise to give it to them.

Sex sells. But in some Republican circles sex is taboo, so they are willing to substitute sex with fear.

Some sources should be dismissed automatically. mAnn is one of them.

Um there are actual facts in there. Facts I have already sourced and brought up. Amnesty and immigration rank very low to hispanics in polling. That is a fact, even if Ann Coulter mentions it, for example.

God forbid politicians trying to do what is right versus what will help them win come next election cycle.

Originally Posted by 'busa

Some sources should be dismissed automatically. mAnn is one of them.

Some opinions should be dismissed automatically. busa's is one of them.

Another iteration of the GOPs rampant "47%" mentality, as applied to Hispanics here. You know, that whoel "makers vs. takers" thing espoused by Romney that served them so well in 2012.

Immigration reform would be a necessary first step towards gaining more appeal to the exploding Latino vote, but hardly the only thing. The articles otherwise disdainful view of Latino political and voting motives shows the GOP still has a long way to go before even understanding what they might need to do to appeal to them, rather than simply disparage and consign them to the Democrats.

Originally Posted by 'busa

Some sources should be dismissed automatically. mAnn is one of them.

quick...find a source that you agree with and post it. give me a fvcking break.

Originally Posted by Act of God

Um there are actual facts in there. Facts I have already sourced and brought up. Amnesty and immigration rank very low to hispanics in polling. That is a fact, even if Ann Coulter mentions it, for example.

Are there? I must be missing it.

Originally Posted by Iceman00

Are there? I must be missing it.

hispanic % of votes per presidential election, hispanic polling on importance of amnesty, hispanic single-mother birth rates, new immigrant % using government entitlements.

Are you not that smart?

I'm hispanic and my friends and family vote democrat because..."they want to be democratic" which is disturbing to me. My own experiences with my fellow peeps is that Ann is right. Some friends will work twice as hard for "free sh1t" than regular work, and soehow they never manage to move ahead. On the other hand the very few that decided to work hard instead accomplished more having a more secured lifestyle. Just my own observation.

Originally Posted by rapier7

God forbid politicians trying to do what is right versus what will help them win come next election cycle.

The point of this article is that democrats are currently pushing for amnesty for their political gain...

But you're simply going to disagree with any and everything that goes against immigration advancements because you're a second generation...

Perhaps look outside your own reality and judge based on those findings.

At the end of the day, CHILDREN OUT OF WEDLOCK is the largest issue we face as a nation... The problem we currently face is cultural. It's the removal of personal accountability and responsibility... As Ann pointed out, 60% of immigrants immediately go on government subsidies.. And do so while rampantly popping out kids who will just be fostered into that reality.. One of government dependency.

The fact that third generation immigrants, on average, are poorer than second screams of acceptance and dependency... Not individual accomplishment, savings, and furthering the future generation.

Morals can not be taught in schools.. And 80% of blacks and 60% of Hispanics growing up without a father present is NOT going to get those values properly instilled.

The democrats have won. They have sat back and promised an end to hard work. Through the nanny state, they're offering table scraps that far too many will accept without getting off their ass to fight for a paycheck to purchase a high quality meal. And why should they when food stamps can buy you cigarettes, lobster, and filets.. But not baby formula.. Because those using assistance dont care to raise a child properly.

For the record, I have no moral issue with unwed parenting, I just know it greatly increases the chances that the kid will be poor and it almost always assures that the woman is poor. Having a kid solo is a huge financial burden for anyone, and stuff like that spirals out of control fast.

Originally Posted by Act of God

For the record, I have no moral issue with unwed parenting, I just know it greatly increases the chances that the kid will be poor and it almost always assures that the woman is poor. Having a kid solo is a huge financial burden for anyone, and stuff like that spirals out of control fast.

There is nothing morally wrong with.. And I know many kids who came from broken homes.. But at least there WERE two parents involved and they simply split at some point.. Not a situation where dad wasn't there from day one. That reality almost guarantees difficulty in the business world and a high probability of issues with the law. Can it be overcome? Of course. But that is the exception rather than the norm.. And whenever that is the case, we should be open to discourage it... Especially when many of these women are having 2, 3, 5, or even more children with various men.. It's appalling and the offspring of those individuals have virtually NO chance.. We all remember the recent Atlanta taser video...

Originally Posted by Act of God

hispanic % of votes per presidential election, hispanic polling on importance of amnesty, hispanic single-mother birth rates, new immigrant % using government entitlements.

Are you not that smart?

Maybe YOU aren't that smart

"Instead of trying to compete with the ethnic lobbies, welfare schemes and racialized politics of the Democrats, perhaps Republicans should allow our immigration system to admit more immigrants who won't immediately go on government assistance, as 60 percent of new immigrants do now."

How is this a fact, where is the source? And who said that these statistics apply to ONLY Hispanics?

So again, what facts am I missing? That the GOP has alienated a group of people and expects them to change party affiliation because of an issue many of them don't care about?

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

The point of this article is that democrats are currently pushing for amnesty for their political gain...

Just as the GOP pushed for amnesty 27 years ago in the hopes of political gain for the GOP and it backfired on them.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

At the end of the day, CHILDREN OUT OF WEDLOCK is the largest issue we face as a nation... The problem we currently face is cultural. It's the removal of personal accountability and responsibility...

Personal accountability & responsibility and WEDLOCK, have nothing to do with each other.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Morals can not be taught in schools.. And 80% of blacks and 60% of Hispanics growing up without a father present is NOT going to get those values properly instilled.

Hmmm.....Chase making the desperate argument that 80% of blacks and 60% of hispanics don't have his definition of "family values" properly instilled in them.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

The democrats have won.

So Chase finally admits the he and his ilk are losers. Well, at least he has not totally lost touch with reality, and we can all be thankful for that.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Because those using assistance dont care to raise a child properly.

And in the gospel according to Chase, obviously there has never been any kid, ever, that was raised on food stamps that has become a productive tax paying member of our society. They have never gotten jobs and/or worked their way through school and built a better life for themselves.



Chase...you finally I have done something I thought you would never do...I actually has a small grain of pity for you.

Originally Posted by Black///M

I'm hispanic and my friends and family vote democrat because..."they want to be democratic" which is disturbing to me. My own experiences with my fellow peeps is that Ann is right. Some friends will work twice as hard for "free sh1t" than regular work, and soehow they never manage to move ahead. On the other hand the very few that decided to work hard instead accomplished more having a more secured lifestyle. Just my own observation.

My Puerto Rican grandfather voted for the same reasoning. And because he stated that democrats were "for the people".

Originally Posted by rdses

And in the gospel according to Chase, obviously there has never been any kid, ever, that was raised on food stamps that has become a productive tax paying member of our society. They have never gotten jobs and/or worked their way through school and built a better life for themselves.



Chase...you finally I have done something I thought you would never do...I actually has a small grain of pity for you.

The statistics are on my side... Sure there are some children born into crummy situations that rise above their starting point.. But they are exceptions and shouldn't be used to simply whitewash the masses as free of abuse and failures. And there is NOTHING wrong with labeling a group largely producing failures as just that.. Failures.

The problem is our PC world has prevented from the masses in "the right" from labeling the failures as such.. Because it results in harassment like that above. I'm a "jerk" because I believe we need limits on the welfare state and abuses within.

You sir are the jerk for furthering an inevitably failing mentality.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

The statistics are on my side... Sure there are some children born into crummy situations that rise above their starting point.. But they are exceptions and shouldn't be used to simply whitewash the masses as free of abuse and failures. And there is NOTHING wrong with labeling a group largely producing failures as just that.. Failures.

The problem is our PC world has prevented from the masses in "the right" from labeling the failures as such.. Because it results in harassment like that above. I'm a "jerk" because I believe we need limits on the welfare state and abuses within.

You sir are the jerk for furthering an inevitably failing mentality.

Where did I state that the welfare system is not in need of significant reform? It is.

You have yet to show that personal accountability & responsibility and WEDLOCK are related. They clearly are not. The divorce rate in this country is proof of that.

You speak of "family values". And just what "family" do they come from? White, "upper middle class", christian, suburbia? Given the high dysfunction in american families, getting as far away from those "values" is a good idea. (Its true, most families are bleeped up. They rely on guilt and shame and passive aggressive behavior to communicate. They attempt to suppress and repress the things that are not "social norms" in themselves and their offspring. If those are the "family values" you speak of, the sooner we are rid of them, the better.

There are more successes than you care to admit. And this "failure" is much more largely based on economics than race. Whites in similar economic circumstances have similar "failure" rates. (Oh...but lets not bring that up because those are whites, and that wouldn't be PC.)

Yes, that's right Chase. You are the PC twip here. You aren't "telling it like it is" because you are so "anti-PC". You are PC as you tow the line of many of those in your political belief circle. You whine like a baby about "reverse discrimination", and attempt to martyr yourself on the alter of "reverse reverse discrimination". Enjoy your persecution complex. It appears to be your baby blanket that keeps you warm at night.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

There is nothing morally wrong with.. And I know many kids who came from broken homes.. But at least there WERE two parents involved and they simply split at some point.. Not a situation where dad wasn't there from day one. That reality almost guarantees difficulty in the business world and a high probability of issues with the law. Can it be overcome? Of course. But that is the exception rather than the norm.. And whenever that is the case, we should be open to discourage it... Especially when many of these women are having 2, 3, 5, or even more children with various men.. It's appalling and the offspring of those individuals have virtually NO chance.. We all remember the recent Atlanta taser video...

Chase, my father split when I was 3 after having me out of wedlock and I have never heard from him since. Avoided the system and never paid child support. That being said I think I am testament that children who come from broken homes have just as much ability to do well as those who don't. It's all a matter of how disciplined the single parent is and how responsible/motivated the child is. A strong loving mother kept me aligned with my goals and worked hard to point me in the right direction. Granted she married my stepfather in my later childhood years but he was rarely around as one would expect a father to be and so my experience of a so called "mentor" was very limited. Point being...don't make generalizations no matter how angry those that abuse the system dig at you. Recognize that yes there is a problem, but falsely accusing all those who came from the same background is ignorant and wrong. Enough with my personal stories though. Just wanted to let ya know that I didn't exactly have the picture perfect family growing up but I turned out at the same level as you. It was a struggle for sure.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

Where did I state that the welfare system is not in need of significant reform? It is.

You have yet to show that personal accountability & responsibility and WEDLOCK are related. They clearly are not. The divorce rate in this country is proof of that.

You speak of "family values". And just what "family" do they come from? White, "upper middle class", christian, suburbia? Given the high dysfunction in american families, getting as far away from those "values" is a good idea. (Its true, most families are bleeped up. They rely on guilt and shame and passive aggressive behavior to communicate. They attempt to suppress and repress the things that are not "social norms" in themselves and their offspring. If those are the "family values" you speak of, the sooner we are rid of them, the better.

There are more successes than you care to admit. And this "failure" is much more largely based on economics than race. Whites in similar economic circumstances have similar "failure" rates. (Oh...but lets not bring that up because those are whites, and that wouldn't be PC.)

Yes, that's right Chase. You are the PC twip here. You aren't "telling it like it is" because you are so "anti-PC". You are PC as you tow the line of many of those in your political belief circle. You whine like a baby about "reverse discrimination", and attempt to martyr yourself on the alter of "reverse reverse discrimination". Enjoy your persecution complex. It appears to be your baby blanket that keeps you warm at night.

I can agree with some of this even though I don't like to admit that I am indeed agreeing with you. I guess it really takes having to experience a shitty background to know that it is indeed possible to rise above the **** pile and lead a successful and rewarding life.