Am I the only one who thinks that this sudden increased interest in immigration, especially the conservative opposition to it (and they are opposed to immigration, legal and illegal) came about at about the same time the census noted that hispanics now outnumber blacks?
This was not an issue in the 2004 election. People and pundits did not start discussing it until about mid-2005 or so, and I know that while the Kennedy-McCain bill had a lot to do with it, I’m still amazed at how it became such a big deal (especially on right-wing radio) out of essentially nowhere.
(I’m also of the mind that in 2008, the anti-immigration crowd on the right will be equally met by an invigorated hispanic vote on the left, and probably completely blown out of the water)
You’re partially right. It was also a big deal in ‘94 here in Cali. It’s only a problem if the GOP makes it into one. Otherwise, they enjoy the fruits of cheap labor and never question why we have illegal immigrants in the first place.
The real problem is that it empowers bigots to go after all Mexicans. That’s why I have to keep my guard up every time a ‘Con raises the issue.
I realize this isn’t exactly a high-brow site, but only a very small number of conservatives are opposed to immigration in general, contrary to what was falsely stated above.
And, R.J.’s comment contains many misleading assumptions, including one misleading statement that most will miss: “Mexicans” are Mexican nationals; “Mexican-Americans” are U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry.
R.J. is right however: this issue has always been big in California and the Southwest. The rest of the country is starting to wake up as they see “liberals” and the MexicanGovernment expand their franchise to their areas, sometimes in collusion.
The rest of the country is starting to wake up as they see “liberals” and the MexicanGovernment expand their franchise to their areas, sometimes in collusion.
Doesn’t get more “high-brow” than that.
Republicans don’t want to even think about Iraq, already played the Gay Marriage, National Security credentials down the toilet, what other issue can they rally around?
If I Remember Correctly, in ‘04 talk radio was looking for something to talk about, and somehow they settled on immigration. Not sure how it ballooned after ‘04.
The rest of the country IS starting to wake up. Most conservatives are for LEGAL immigration. Lets call them what they are: illegal aliens, not immigrants.
The rest of the country IS starting to wake up. Most conservatives are for LEGAL immigration. Lets call them what they are: illegal aliens, not immigrants.
The rest of the country IS starting to wake up. Most conservatives are for LEGAL immigration. Lets call them what they are: illegal aliens, not immigrants.
Immigration did become more central in 2005-2006, but it was bubbling under the surface for a while before that. This was more notable in the Southwest.
The nativist urge is always there. It is an effective issue for the Republican base. It is in accord with their worldview that people who are not white, Protestant males are lesser beings.
NoMoreBlather has it wrong. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt because he’s not here in Ground Zero and/or not Latino. With many of those zealots, there is no difference between Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. That is not a misleading assumption. That is the truth.
No OW Conservatives began wrestling with this issue once the Iraq War could no longer be sold to the American public with a straight face. They then pulled out the oldest trick in the GOP bag…..a subtle but blatant form of racism but this time wrapped in nationalism. What better way to rally the 30 percenters than with the “brown scare”. Well it has obviously backfired since the very people the GOP tries to alienate are the same people who have gained the power to decide elections. The irony isn’t lost on me; and I love it.
If Hispanics turn even further to the Democrats, especially the ones in Florida, the GOP is sunk. If they lose Florida, they lose the White House.
This issue has come up because it resonates with people.
The over all objection is not to legal immigration but to illegal.
It really came to the media for front during the big protests in LA around May of 2006. A huge number of Mexicans were protesting. How could you tell they were Mexicans and not Mexican-Americans? They were waiving MEXICAN flags.
Then there is the security angle, if people can just walk across the border, they can walk across carrying all kinds of evil stuff.
I would say that 90% of the opposition is driven by the impression that these newcomers are too slow to assimilate. They are way way way too slow to learn English.
10% of everyone born in Mexico lives in the US right now.
I don’t think most people would mind if they made it clear that they are coming here to become Americans.
This issue is not going to go away.
Not only that, is it true that Hispanics will be now considered under the Blanket of “white”. Blacks only comprise 12% of the population as it is, with whites and hispanics combined they will definitely out number us.
I’m all for living where you want to live. Legally. And always remember when “in Rome do as the Romans do” that doesn’t leave behind your traditions and customs but you do have to assimilate to some extent.
As I’ve said many times before, illegal immigration from Mexico will become a front-burner issue for the Democrats when blacks — arguably the party’s most loyal constituency — feel that they are losing preferred minority status.
Labor unions (especially Teamsters) will also play a part when the number of union jobs lost to Mexican immigrants (who work for substantially less than union labor) reaches critical mass.
We ought to look at the issue honestly and design a policy around the facts:
* the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico
* a substantial number of these Mexicans are here simply to earn money, not to become American citizens
* threats to national security are most likely to come from immigrants other than those from Mexico (though there is the likelihood of terrorists entering Mexico and then trying to enter the US as Mexicans)
* our border is extremely porous, and terrorists can move men and equipment across large portions of it probably without being detected
* there are a number of political factions that have been working overtime to stir up nationalist sentiment among Mexican immigrants and to prevent assimilation of Mexicans into American culture
Mexicans are no more a threat to America than Italians, Irish, Jewish, Polish, etc. were a century ago. But the circumstances surrounding their immigration and residency in the US are totally different.
PS - the number of “conservatives” who oppose all immigration is probably about equal to the number of liberals who want the US to become a communist state
“the number of “conservatives” who oppose all immigration”
Do you know how many times I’ve heard prominent conservatives on TV complain about illegal immigration changing the complexion / demographics / etc. of the United States.
This charge has nothing to do with keeping illegals out and has everything to do with keeping America white.
They might not oppose all immigration, but they are close.
a substantial number of these Mexicans are here simply to earn money, not to become American citizens
No different than in earlier times. The most important American product and export is the Almighty Dollar. Citizenship, for most immigrants in our history, has only been an excuse to know who the dead Presidents in their pockets were.
there are a number of political factions that have been working overtime to stir up nationalist sentiment among Mexican immigrants and to prevent assimilation of Mexicans into American culture
Most of the Hispanic organizations I have encountered cater to folks born here.
Mexicans are no more a threat to America than Italians, Irish, Jewish, Polish, etc. were a century ago. But the circumstances surrounding their immigration and residency in the US are totally different.
The only thing different between earlier immigrants and the current crop is that the newbies are coming from next door. Otherwise, they’re acting no different, and the response to them is no different. There really is nothing new under the sun.
As for Oliver’s original post, yes, he’s right, and Hispanics are less-strong Democrats than blacks (for the latter, Republican voter outreach is to show suburban voters that Republicans aren’t racists). The country is becoming less white, and Hispanics are about the only non-whites with whom Republicans haven’t totally burnt their bridges. The Republicans big problem now is that the talking out of both sides of their mouth about immigration that worked well in 2004 is catching up with them, so much so that no one in their party is happy with their leaders on this issue.
It’s all because the Repubs know that America’s new, changing demographics means they are going to be a “new permanent Repub minority”.
Look at the tactics the Repubs have been using to steal or eliminate minority votes these past 6 years.
Who in their right mind would vote for a candidate from a party that hates them?
I’m sure you’re all familiar with this:
Gibson: “Make more babies” because in “[t]wenty-five years … the majority of the population is Hispanic”
Summary: On The Big Story, John Gibson urged viewers to “[d]o your duty. Make more babies,” because he had found out, from a recently released report, that nearly half of all children under the age of five in the United States are minorities. Gibson added: “You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic.” Gibson later repeated: “To put it bluntly, we need more babies.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120006
There’s the not-so-litle security aspect of the debate. Were Oliver to do the research, he’d actually see the immigration issue shoot to the fore sometime in late 2001.
“How could you tell they were Mexicans and not Mexican-Americans? They were waiving MEXICAN flags.”
They were “waiving” Mexican flags.
First, check your spelling.
Second and most important - Just because someone is “waiving” the flag of another country that makes them NOT Americans. That really makes a hell of a lot of sense. That means people in SC and GA still belong to the CSA, even though it does not exist. What a loon!
I can’t imagine telling someone that they should assimilate. It’s none of my business.
It doesn’t take long for some stupid liberal to return to the trope they are so familiar with. This is, conservatives aren’t concerned about illegal immigration other than we just hate the brown people.
The fact is, the majority of conservatives support measures making it easier to become a citizen and that cracking down on illegal immigration would free up resources and people to help make it easier for those seeking to live the American dream to do so.
But yanking the ‘hate card’ out is easy for many liberals. Liberals like OxyCon and Stowbridge who have no capacity to discuss the issue with any semblance of intellectual honesty. They’d hurt themselves if they had to think that way. So they round up a few quotes here and there and claim such anecdotal nonsense is indicative of all conservatives. It’s a boring and lame tactic used by people with the mental capacity of flies.
Oliver, the accusation that conservatives are opposed to immigration is a lie, plain and simple.
Venn diagram time, Jay.
Not all conservatives oppose immigration.
Most opponents of immigration are conservative.
Both can be true without conflict of logic.
“This is, conservatives aren’t concerned about illegal immigration other than we just hate the brown people.”
How do you explain Bill O’Reilly, Pat Buchannan and others complaining about the changing complexion of the United States. BOR even said liberals want more illegal immigration to destroy the while, male, Christian power structure in the States.
If that isn’t complete racism, what the fuck is it?
And this is not coming from some fringe group, these are people who have massive media exposure and are leaders of the movement.
To dismiss them is intellectually dishonest.
Most opponents of illegal immigration are conservative.
There. Fixed that for you.
I have had it with this garbage. Did it ever occur to you liberals that it has NOTHING to do with skin color?
Or race? No, that wouldn’t fit in with the victim agenda.
Illegal immigration has to do with the rule of LAW people.
The same laws that we ALL have to live under made by both Democrat and Republican.
I am from Arizona and lived in California for 20 years.
I have seen the fraud that is perpetrated by employers and the discrimination against
white people who want to work the fields but the illegal aliens who make up most of the membership have that shop sewn up.
Get a grip.
There. Fixed that for you.
You having trouble with the Venns too?
No, it was just fine the way I had it the first time. Your “fixed” version would be a subset.
“it has NOTHING to do with skin color?…the discrimination against
white people”
Oopsie!
Venn diagram time, Jay.
Not all conservatives oppose immigration.
Most opponents of immigration are conservative.
Wrong Quaker. Most opponents of illegal immigration are conservative.
If you or Oliver have some evidence that conservatives as a whole are opposed to immigration, by all means, lets see it.
Wrong Quaker. Most opponents of illegal immigration are conservative.
If you or Oliver have some evidence that conservatives as a whole are opposed to immigration, by all means, lets see it.
Hey, I was kidding about Venn diagrams, but it looks like you really did skip class when they talked about set theory.
I did not say that most conservatives oppose immigration. I DID say that most people who oppose immigration are conservatives.
Most grass is green. Not everything green is grass, comprende?
“I did not say that most conservatives oppose immigration. I DID say that most people who oppose immigration are conservatives.”
And that subtle difference will be ignore again and again.
C. S. -
O’Reilly and Buchannan are probably the only two prominent “conservatives” (and as far as I know neither are members of the Republican party) who have openly lamented Mexican immigrants diluting American culture. You and everyone else here are attempting to create a strawman argument based on two people. You’ll have to do better than that, and please don’t insult us by dredging up quotes from local yokels no one has ever heard of. In other words, the KKK grand wizard from Podunk county Alabama isn’t going to cut it as an example of a conservative leader.
In thinking about this further, immigration seems akin to “Social Security” and “healthcare” as issues that are drummed up during election years, but are not problems which the American people want drastically changed. Witness the ‘93 defeat of massive healthcare refrom, the ‘05 defeat of SS reform, and the ‘07 defeat of immigration reform.
Mike, the reason immigration reform was defeated was that it amounted to amnesty. It’s the same liberal song and dance if you speak out against ILLEGAL immigration you’re a racist. I, for one think if the reform had included building a wall, and sending illegals home instead of eventual amnesty the bill would have had some hope of passing.
Tell me, Mr. Young–should we also build a wall on our northern border?
O’Reilly and Buchannan are probably the only two prominent “conservatives” (and as far as I know neither are members of the Republican party) who have openly lamented Mexican immigrants diluting American culture.
Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, the “Minutemen”, need I go on?
You and everyone else here are attempting to create a strawman argument based on two people.
Two (well, more than that) people that the conservatives let speak for them.
Tell you what, Young. We’ll compromise: we build a wall at the Texas border–the northern Texas border.
“O’Reilly and Buchannan are probably the only two prominent “conservatives” (and as far as I know neither are members of the Republican party) who have openly lamented Mexican immigrants diluting American culture.”
Actually, when O’Reilly did it, McCain agreed with him.
The Minutemen actively recruit from Stormwatch, a white supremacist website.
Not every conservative who speaks out against illegal immigration is a racist, but there are certainly significant numbers that are. And these people are not the fringe.
Quaker, If things keep going this way Canada will build the wall for us to keep out the American-nationalist illegally crossing to leave Mex-America or whatever you want to call it. Zython, A lot of Texans would thank you.
The Immigration issue was put together by the leaders of the GOP to fire up their base.
Leading Con Media Machine figures like Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Boortz, Beck, people with MILLIONS of listeners and viewers daily have been flogging this issue since 2002, as the storm signals of warning began to appear for the GOP.
The chief strategist for the GOP, Mehlman, whose term ended after the 2006 cycle was totally against the illegal alien card, and people like JC Hayworth would be in the Congress today if it were a viable political strategy. It’s not.
It is a scorched-earth policy for the GOP, they are burning their seed corn by alienating the largest minorty in our society. But they have been convinced they have no choice: They believe no other current issue will energize their grass-roots contribution machine and get out their vote like this one. As we’ve seen from their just-released primary candidate contribution numbers where the Dem slate drew nearly 50% more than their slate, it is not working.
It’s the beginning of the end of the GOP as it exists today; and it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of pro-racist imbeciles.
It’s the same liberal song and dance if you speak out against ILLEGAL immigration you’re a racist.
No, that’s not why.
I DID say that most people who oppose immigration are conservatives.
Fine. You said that. It’s also wrong. Or do you have any evidence to support your accusation?
Or do you have any evidence to support your accusation?
Just what I see with my own two eyes, Jay. Maybe you could point me to some of those liberal opponents of immigration, just to provide some balance.
the number of “conservatives” who oppose all immigration is probably about equal to the number of liberals who want the US to become a communist state
Posted by: Mike |
I dunno. If you listen to folks like Dugger and Frank, that’s a pretty big number.
Wellstone:”The Immigration issue was put together by the leaders of the GOP to fire up their base.”
There’s that pesky vast right-wing conspiracy again.
Are you saying I am a racist for pointing out the double standard? That ‘undocumented Americans’ are calling me racist when they tell others that the field work is a closed shop and only brown, hispanic and illegal need apply?
Tell me how pointing out reverse discrimination is racist?
*crickets chirping*
And put my remarks in context.
I lived in Arizona, and California. Being opposed to ILLEGAL immigration contrasted with LEGAL immigration is not racist. Prove that opposition to the amnesty bill is racist.
Tell me how pointing out reverse discrimination is racist?
Your crickets are a little quick on the draw, LaFlamme.
I’ll tell the problem with pointing out “reverse discrimination”.
So-called “reverse discrimination” is a claim one hears only from those who drag it out as a justification for opposing any and all efforts to adopt any policy that remedies past discrimination. And oddly, the people who holler “reverse discrimination” are usually white, male, middle-class (or better), and not at a loss for social or economic opportunity.
The claim of reverse discrimination assumes that anything done to benefit one group of people necessarily takes something of equal value from everyone else. Under this line of thinking, there should be no effort to remedy past wrongs, just a shrug of the shoulders as we forget it ever happened.
Is the claim of reverse discrimination racist? All by itself, technically not. But it sure shows us who you are.
Prove that opposition to the amnesty bill is racist.
Why? Were we discussing that?
As long as I’m piling on:
Are you saying I am a racist for pointing out the double standard?
No. No, not at all.
I’m saying you’re a hypocrite for claiming “it has NOTHING to do with skin color” and then promptly playing the “reverse discrimination” card.
What a give-away!
“It’s the beginning of the end of the GOP as it exists today; and it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of pro-racist imbeciles.” -Robert D.Young
sincerely the best analysis of the current situation i’ve read all day
Sorry BORG, that was Wellstone, not Mr. Young. ‘Round here, the poster’s name comes after the comment, see?
Zython, A lot of Texans would thank you.
What the hell is THAT supposed to mean? Did you even read what I wrote?
Thanks for pointing that out Quaker.
Zython, a lot of Texans believe they should have The Republic of Texas with walls to the north and south.
P.S. plus they hate Okies
Well, if the goal is to preserve American culture, I say we keep the Texans out. And deport the ones who already sneaked in.
Zython, a lot of Texans believe they should have The Republic of Texas with walls to the north and south.
Are you talking about the post about putting a fence on the northern border? Because I didn’t post that. I’ll just assume you mixed up the posts.
Sorry Zython it was Quaker.
No, no hypocrisy on my part.
First of all, I said this was about the rules. The minute you select a group (any group) for preferential treatment, you marginalize and disenfranchise others…regardless of skin color in ANY of the groups.
So, how is being against amnesty racist? Especially when there are Hispanics here who played by the rules and
are part of the landscape; the melting pot, etc?
How is it racist? You haven’t answered the question.
So, how can you say that opponents of amnesty are racist? Just because I cite reverse discrimination? Oh, I see, you want the playground mentality here; they did it first so I will do second! Nope that dog won’t hunt.
Racism as I saw it was reserved for the ones who claimed they were being marginalized by it; in some cases it was legitimate; in others it was not. And it cuts BOTH WAYS regardless of color.
So, how can you say that opponents of amnesty are racist?
I didn’t. That’s how.
You don’t read very well, do you?
So, how is being against amnesty racist? Especially when there are Hispanics here who played by the rules and
are part of the landscape; the melting pot, etc?
How is it racist? You haven’t answered the question.
I haven’t answered it because you didn’t ask it until just now. Opposing “amnesty” as you call it isn’t racist all by itself. The attending hysteria about the “invasion” and the “loss of cultural values” pretty much give away the game, though, don’t they?
Quaker, I don’t believe wanting to keep our cultural values is racist. What may be racist is not wanting a group of people, 50% of whom don’t have a 7th grade education, coming into our country illegally . And yes I call that an invasion in every sense of the word.
I don’t believe wanting to keep our cultural values is racist
Really? Then explain how the “cultural values” of illegal immigrants differ from our own.