Arizona Bill….What would Reagan think?

Loading


Who really knows? No one speaks on behalf of the dead. But I think this article by Alfonso Aguilar offers some good food for thought and cautionary advice (read it from the beginning, regarding why Latinos are a potential voting block for Republicans, not Democrats):

Thirty years have elapsed since the Reagan revolution began, but many Republicans seem to have forgotten Reagan’s views. Arizona Republicans’ passage last week of a law that criminalizes undocumented immigrants and allows for the profiling of Latinos is the most recent example of this.

The fact is that, beginning in 2006, a small but loud group of GOP members of Congress, strongly supported by an anti-population-growth restrictionist lobby (when did these folks become conservative?), began a campaign to oppose any effort to reform our immigration system.

Many hard-line conservatives may not have liked President Bush’s attempts at immigration reform, but the status quo certainly hasn’t been acceptable, either. It is hyperbolic overexaggerated emotionalism that equates 2006 GOP attempts at immigration reform as the equivalent to “amnesty”. It’s the “all-or-nothing” mentality that refuses to accept a viable, practical, workable solution.

Sadly, many also started using incendiary anti-immigrant rhetoric — which offended most Latino voters.

This contributed significantly to the Republican loss of the House and Senate in 2006.

Power Line claims the reverse is true.

It also contributed to Sen. John McCain, long an unquestioned supporter of immigration reform and a friend of the Latino community, receiving only 31 percent of the Latino vote in the 2008 presidential election. This was 13 percent less than George W. Bush’s Latino support four years earlier.

Even more frustrating was that Republican leaders, most of whom actually support immigration, remained silent — apparently afraid of the anti-immigration advocacy groups.

Needless to say, the appearance of an anti-immigrant “know nothing” faction in the GOP is counterproductive if we consider that the political weight of Latinos keeps growing as their numbers have swelled dramatically.

Today, they are the nation’s largest minority group — 45 million and growing, or almost 10 percent of the electorate.

How can anyone seriously think that the conservative agenda can be advanced and the Republican Party be viable nationally without increased Latino support?

As Michael Medved writes:

With a record number of black candidates seeking Republican nominations in upcoming congressional races, the GOP may finally make progress in facing the most serious menace to its survival: the lack of support from any significant segment of the nonwhite population.

Not all of the 33 African-American contenders will win their primary contests, let alone the general election, but at least a half-dozen of them face promising prospects and could provide new energy for a party that desperately needs to shatter its lily-white image.

There are no Republicans among the present 41 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, or among the 24 members of the Hispanic Caucus — an absence that reflects the party’s woeful performance among minority voters in recent elections and may threaten its very existence.

Consider the historic campaign of 2008, when President Barack Obama bested John McCain by a solid margin of 7.2 percentage points. According to the authoritative exit polls, the vast majority of voters (74 percent) identified themselves as “white,” and McCain won a landslide among this segment of the electorate, thrashing Obama by a resounding 12 points (55 percent to 43 percent). This was the same margin that George W. Bush commanded among white voters in his 2000 victory over Al Gore. In fact, because of the larger electorate, McCain’s losing effort actually drew 9.5 million more votes overall than Bush’s victorious campaign of eight years before.

Why, then, did Bush win the White House while McCain suffered humiliating defeat? The answer is that in eight years the nonwhite portion of electorate soared — from 19 percent of voters to 26 percent of voters. Among these voters, Obama won by a 4-to-1 margin — easily wiping out McCain’s big advantage among white voters.

For two reasons, these numbers command close attention for anyone concerned about the Republican future.

First, there is no chance that white voters will ever again comprise 74 percent of the electorate. Most projections for 2012 suggest that self-identified whites will comprise 70 percent or, at most, 72 percent of those who cast presidential ballots.

Second, it would be hard for any Republican to improve significantly on McCain’s hefty 12-point margin among whites, which means that without an improved showing among Hispanics, blacks and Asians, GOP contenders will lose every time.

The math here is brutal and eye-opening. If Obama in 2012 wins the same percentage of the combined black, Asian and Hispanic vote that he won in 2008 (82 percent), then in order to beat him the GOP candidate would need to win an unimaginable 65 percent of all white voters — whose numbers include such stalwart Democratic constituencies as gays, atheists, Jews and union members.

The 65 percent threshold represents a far higher percentage than Ronald Reagan won in his landslide against Jimmy Carter in 1980, or even his history-making 49-state re-election-sweep against Walter Mondale in ’84.

Since white voters won’t comprise larger portions of the electorate in future races, and since no Republican could compile a big enough white majority to win the election on those voters alone, that leaves only one possible path for GOP victory: more competitive performance among Hispanic, African-American and Asian citizens.

Fortunately, recent history demonstrates that such competition is possible. In 2004, the exit polls showed that Bush earned 44 percent of both Latino and Asian voters, and 11 percent of the black vote. This represents a huge advantage over the sorry performance of McCain.

Running against Obama, no Republican could have won a big percentage of the African-American community, but if McCain had merely won the same percentage as Bush four years before, he would have drawn 1.2 million more black votes for the GOP ticket — an obviously meaningful difference in any close election.

Winning an electoral majority doesn’t require capturing, or even splitting, every ethnic group, but no candidate can prevail if he (or she) gets overwhelmed among all nonwhite voters. In this context, the GOP doesn’t need to win with each of the 33 black Republicans in current congressional contests, or even with most of them.

But if any of them carry their districts in November, it will help change the GOP image as a whites-only political organization and rejuvenate the once-vibrant party of Lincoln and Reagan that is still struggling against marginalization and irrelevance.

Concluding back to Aguilar:

To those fiercely critical of undocumented immigrants, Reagan once quipped “it makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion, or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won’t do? One thing is certain in this hungry world: No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.”

The time is ripe for Republicans to reclaim the immigration issue and rebuild support in the Latino community.

A true conservative plan would not be the “Obama plan” or “amnesty,” as immigration foes like to label any proposal to effectively deal with the immigration problem.

Our solution would be a market-based immigration plan recognizing that the key to resolving this complex issue is easing the legal flows of the temporary workers our economy needs to keep growing.

It would include a “legalization with a penalty” component, stronger border security and domestic enforcement, and a reinvigorated tradition of patriotic assimilation.

What should give us, as conservatives, peace of mind is that to ask for the Latino vote we don’t have to give up our principles.

On the contrary, we just have to continue defending our traditional conservative values — with which so many immigrants identify — and support a plan that is consistent with our belief in the free market and the rule of law.

Republicans should follow Reagan’s example — and show the leadership and courage needed to build a broad multi-ethnic conservative coalition.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What would Reagan do?? If past performance is any indicator, amnesty is the 1st thing that comes to mind for me..

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also Simpson-Mazzoli Act (Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, signed by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986) is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The Act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization), required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously. The Act also granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982.[1] SOURCE

The problem is not the roaming workers. We should smooth the way for workers to move in and out of our country and to pay taxes when here.

The problem is the way criminal blithely jump over the border and kidnap, rob, and murder with impunity and then jump back over the border to hide. We must stop the crime and the criminals. That should be the focus of any reform plan.

I can understand why the GOP needs to get on the better side of the Latino vote, but I’m not a great supporter of these new ideals for immigration reform. This drivel about amnesty or all-or-nothing attitude is a side step away from the main point. Legal immigration has been the driving force behind America’s great melting-pot, and the source of our greatness, but the congestive illegal’s that swarm our borders, jobs, and land is stagnating our country. Now when we finally want to do something about it, or when it becomes too big a problem people want to start saying “We need to reform our immigration laws.” Well with all due respect, that’s bull. For years millions of immigrants have applied, worked hard, and followed the rules to get into this country and they have contributed greatly to America for it. Those that cannot, or are unwilling to should not be shown any leniency in regards to this. This countries foundation is built on the hard work and resources of legal immigrants, the recent and new progressive ideals that has taken the American public discredits all they stood and worked for.

This contributed significantly to the Republican loss of the House and Senate in 2006.

I don’t buy this for one second. Republicans became Democrats. They were simply more pigs at the trough. They spent stupidly. There was no difference between them and Democrats and THAT’s why they lost.

Mess up the pious righteousness of the do-gooder mentality-start speaking out about the fact that illegal immigrants typically earn $3,000 to $6,000 more than legal Black and African Americans earn.

The American Ghetto- built by the pious righteousness of do-gooders who need poor people on their slave plantation so that do-gooders can feel something in their hollowed, empty souls.

@TF…obviously you don’t know Reagan as well as you think you do. Yes, he let Teddy Kennedy bamboozle him into amnesty, but Reagan was a firm, staunch believer in state’s rights. So I feel that he would be in favor of AZ doing what they did because he believed that the states should have the power to police themselves. Especially, in this case since it is true the the Fed isn’t and hasn’t been doing it’s job as far as the border is concerned.

“First we set forth principals. We are a nation of immigrants committed to the rule of law. The Commission believes that legal immigration has strengthened the country and that it continues to do so. We as a commission denounce the hostility that seems to be developing toward all immigrants.

To make sense about the national interest in immigration, it is necessary to make distinctions between those who obey the law, and those who violate it. Therefore, we disagree, also, with those who label our efforts to control illegal immigration as somehow inherently anti-immigrant. Unlawful immigration is unacceptable…………………

Fourth, deportation is crucial. Credibility in immgration policy can be sommed up in one sentence: those who should get it, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.

————————————————————————————————-

Those words were spoken not by some homophobic, racist bigot. And they are not recent. They were spoken in 1995 at a Congressional heaing on immigration. And their application is no different today, than it was 15 years ago.

But then, LaRaza, LULAC and MALDF did not have the power, or the lobbying abilities, they do now. But even then, anyone who supported the rule of law was being labeled by those who did not.

I am constantly being told that it is simply unfair to expect those who entered this nation illegally to go back to their native soil and apply to come to the U.S. through the front door. It is “inhumane”, I am told. Yet, as I watch people protest, waving the flags of the nations they left, I have to wonder if those people will EVER have any loyality to the nation they are demanding rights from. When high school boys of Hispanic heritage are booted from school because they chose to wear the American flag to school on a day that is nothing more than a regional holiday in Mexico, and the students that were objecting to the American flag, at an American high school, built on American soil and paid for by American taxpayers, are catered to because of “sensitivities”, this world seems upside down to me.

I live in a state that has a proud Tejano heritage. Not Mexican, Tejano. Texans of Mexican heritage who are proud of the part they played in making my state as great as it is. Their loyality is to Texas, and the United States, not to the nation that once oppressed their ancestors because they lived in Tejas. And they are the future of the Republican Party because they, more than anyone, understand the oppression their ancesters lived under.

To assume that we must ignore the violations of our laws because of someone’s hertiage, or skin color, makes me ask: as a American of Irish/Cherokee heritage, what laws do I get to chose to break and will be given a pass on?

A very good friend of mine, a group leader for the Texas Minutemen Project, and a person of Mexican heritage whose parents entered this nation legally making her a “first-generation” American, told me why she is a Republican; because, she said, to the Democrats she is just a vote, not a person.

As more and more Americans of Hispanic heritage reach their goals for financial success, and become a greater part of our nation, they will also come to understand what my friend understands; to the Democrats, they are just a vote, not a person.

Second, it would be hard for any Republican to improve significantly on McCain’s hefty 12-point margin among whites, which means that without an improved showing among Hispanics, blacks and Asians, GOP contenders will lose every time.

Wordsmith, specific to the presidency, who of the current crop of GOP front-runners for 2012 do you think really has a chance of pulling minority voters away from Obama? Obviously, he has a huger built-in advantage, but I don’t see many of the big players on the GOP stage making a dent.

Here are the choices from the 2010 CPAC straw poll:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul – 31 percent
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — 22 percent
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — 7 percent
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty – 6 percent
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich – 4 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — 4 percent
Indiana Rep. Mike Pence – 5 percent
South Dakota Sen. John Thune — 2 percent
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels — 2 percent
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum — 2 percent
Mississippi Gov. Hailey Barbour – 1 percent
Other – 5 percent
Undecided – 6 percent

Obviously, two big names, Palin and Ginrich, have no chance. I would say Romney has the most potential. Not a very promising list overall if you’re looking to build support amongst minority voters.

That CPAC poll was bogus. As in “fixed”.

I can’t give you an answer to your question, but I wouldn’t be looking to the CPAC straw poll for any indication of actual numbers…

@retire05:
Howdy neighbor.

@Tom…You said:

Obviously, he has a huger built-in advantage…

huger?”

@ Anticsriocks, whoops. meant to write “huge”. Thank you for pointing that out.

I see an all or nothing mentality on both sides. Dems want amnesty and paths to citizenship. Reps want to round everyone up, ship them back and seal the border.

First and foremost, I believe we need to secure the borders. It has less to do with keeping out some guy that is trying to make a better living for his family and more to do with keeping out the next bombing attempt.

I hear a lot of my conservative friends talking about immigrating legally and that there is no other way to solve this problem than that. But that won’t solve the problem. To immigrate from Mexico, you have to first have a passport. To get a passport, you have to have a job. So let’s say you happen to have a job and you get your passport, now you need a visa to even visit the States. To get a visa, you have to have a job and prove a consistent income. Only then can you begin the process of applying for a green card.
If I lost my job, couldn’t find another and looked on my family that was hungry and suffering, nothing would stop me from finding a way to make things better for them; and it certainly wouldn’t be a border to a country that I know provides opportunity. The only way to solve that problem is a worker’s program. That program would have to be administered by the U.S. and not rely on Mexican paperwork. And those worker’s should be allowed to apply for green cards, but they would have to have no criminal record, show that they paid their taxes and at the very least pass a basic English test. There has to be some assimilation for this to work, and not just for those from Latin countries. Go walking through Chinatown sometime.

AQUA:hi, i kind of like the good one from MEXICO that emigrate in big city of CANADA, better than some others;at least they assimilate better,dont want to wear scarfe eather and dont try to force their politicly aimed religion to our youngs at university and would go jihad if anyone make a joke just to lauph; 🙄 bye

@ ilovebeeswarzone

I agree. Being Catholic, I get to hear a lot of jokes about my religion, just like any other religion in the States. You can’t come to America and think your religion should be held in higher esteem than any other religion.

As a man who works in agriculture in several states and has a agriculture business in California, I can personally attest to the entrepreneurial spirit of the American of Mexican heritage and to the same spirit in illegal aliens. These guys can start with nothing and build an empire by employing the same American work ethic that Americans are losing sight of in their rush to be nurtured by the big nanny of Socialism; the disease that compromises the spirit of initiative and self-reliance is one that even Republican voters do not necessarily have an immunity.

Unfortunately, the Socialist message has been more effective at snaring the American of Mexican heritage; we need not ask why their message is more effective, because the Republican Party has no message to the American of Mexican heritage. In other words a weak insipid appeal is better than no appeal; however, the Mexican Communists and radicals are also actively recruiting the Hispanic vote for the Democrat Party, especially among the less educated. Until we recruit well spoken Hispanic leaders with a clear message and logic that makes sense to the Hispanic voter, we are going to sacrifice the fastest growing demographic in North America.

I maintain that these American are natural Republicans with a natural Republican value system that is more defined than that of many Republicans; but unless you have someone who can explain the situation within the nuances of their culture, the message isn’t getting across, at least with the less assimilated. At some generational point, the American of Mexican heritage becomes a fiercely patriotic American: questioning his patriotism is not advisable, he is more than capable of deciding his own political allegiances.

I have opened the door and explained the situation several times to Hispanic agricultural people with unknown results; but once the conversation is over, my potential Republican is bombarded with people from his own culture who see the Democrat party as the savior.

Mark Rubio comes to mind, if men like him can capture the imagination of our Americans of Hispanic heritage, the political climate will change considerably.

I will not be able to respond to outrage, until late tonight.