David Blue on February 7, 2013 at 7:24 PM

You still haven’t answered the question.

Mr. Obama regained the Presidency due to a very large number of whites voting for him — and those whites were supposedly in agreement with your “The Democratic Party stands for free stuff for non-whites at the expense of whites.”

That is an idiotic statement on so many levels it’s almost impossible to choose one level to emphasize in a response.

If the majority of non-whites are voting for Democrats for “free stuff”, then why did that majority reliably vote for Republicans prior to the 1960′s?

It can’t be the “free stuff” because the Democrats didn’t start offering all that free stuff until nearly a decade after the shift.

Asians aren’t in line for the “free stuff” and yet they have, in the past few years, shifted from being overwhelmingly Republican to being majority Democrat — and the shift continues.

Free stuff explains a large contingent of the 47% who reliably vote for anything that continues their free handouts — but it doesn’t explain all.

Immigration is one component of a multifaceted policy position, and I believe that the Republicans are right in nearly everything else but really really wrong on this one.

A restrictive immigration policy flies in the face of the personal freedom message that Republicans are otherwise proclaiming.

If the GOP represents its base, which it should, like Democrats represent their base, there is no way the GOP should be for this.

David Blue on February 7, 2013 at 7:37 PM

As was once said: All your base are owned by us.

Once upon a time, Republicans in general stood for free immigration. No quotas, no standing in line 10 years for the right to work. Your right to work — and to pay taxes on that work — began as soon as you set foot upon our soil.

If you were of good character, and paid your taxes, you had an assured path to citizenship.

The places were Republicans strayed from that ideal are the places which are darkest. If you want to understand the philosophical forebears of modern Republican immigration policy, look to citations of The Alien Exclusion Acts or The Chinese Exclusion Act. Look at all the groups excluded by these Acts — the Jews, the Chinese, the Japanese, including American citizens from these groups.

That’s the brush we Republicans are being tarred with — and it is a fitting brush given the majority of comments posted here.

The Democrats made their mistake during WWII when they incarcerated both Japanese aliens and Citizens of Japanese Ancestry — an act of ethnic and racial discrimination by FDR and a host of other prominent Democrats which President Reagan apologized for on behalf of the United States — his letter is framed and on view at the Manzanar Relocation Center.

Could it be that a lot of minorities might read your first line and say — if that’s what Republicans think — well, I’m for the other guy?

unclesmrgol on February 7, 2013 at 2:04 PM

They’re already for the other guy, because of racial solidarity, for instance lining up with La Raza against the gringos, because of racial preferences that benefit them at the expense of whites, because big government benefits them personally day to day and they live day to day, and because they are really leftist, from countries where both major parties are officially Socialist and the mass media in their languages is leftist too.

These are solid Democratic votes. The Republican Party is not going to win them, and certainly not with amnesty.

And of all the ways to try and win those votes – which won’t happen – the stupidest would be to refuse to discuss what is happening to the GOP base, which is 90% white and conservative.

Mass non-white immigration plus forced integration (for the whites, who have to be accepting, not for the non-whites, who are free to play us vs. them racial and ethnic games) is death on these voters. In the long run the implication is that there would be no white people at all. In the medium and short run, it’s these whites that get crowded out, that lose out due to affirmative action and so on, that lose the value of their homes when the neighborhood is not safe for their kids any more and they have to move, and that gets taxed to pay for all this.

If the GOP represents its base, which it should, like Democrats represent their base, there is no way the GOP should be for this.

So why do whites vote Democratic?

unclesmrgol on February 7, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Mitt Romney, a not very charismatic candidate, won whites in every category from the youngest to the oldest and both sexes.

The Stuff White People Like whites, the university people who are fully indoctrinated into the government preferences system, speech codes and so one, and union workers who have huge material incentives also voted Democrat, as do single women, especially single mothers, who are in effect voting for their husband the state. But all these still add up to a minority of whites.

(And there are “whites” that don’t identify as white or vote like whites, such as Arabs, who’d rather have their own classification.)

You lose.

WryTrvllr on February 6, 2013 at 5:01 PM

He wins, actually.

The Democratic Party stands for free stuff for non-whites at the expense of whites.

David Blue on February 7, 2013 at 11:42 AM

So why do whites vote Democratic?

Considering that the Republican Party was the party advocating for minority rights just a few decades ago, but that the Democrats have stolen said spotlight, could that be the issue?

Could it be that a lot of minorities might read your first line and say — if that’s what Republicans think — well, I’m for the other guy?

And the obvious question to ask is “why”?

unclesmrgol on February 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM

The Democratic Party stands for free stuff for non-whites at the expense of whites.

The Democratic Party delivers the free stuff and racial preferences via affirmative action, disparate impact, quotas, set-asides and so on, and it has been doing so ever since LBJ.

90% of immigrants are non-white. As soon as they get a foot in the door they are entitled to all the goodies the Democratic Party gives non-whites.

80% of non-whites vote Democratic, for racial solidarity reasons and free stuff.

It’s a virtuous cycle from the Democratic point of view, and a vicious cycle from the Republican point of view.

David Blue on February 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM

And the obvious question to ask is “why”?

Why are hard working immigrants — even the legal ones — becoming Democrats in far greater numbers than they are becoming Republicans?

There’s only one Republican message which has changed, and only one Democratic message that has changed — which can account for this groundswell in favor of the Democrats.

We have become, in one big way, those whom we dispise, and we are paying the price electorally.

And until you chimed in, no one here mentioned “brown-skinned people”.

sartana on February 6, 2013 at 6:55 PM

I will though. Non-whites vote 80% Democratic, and that’s the basis of modern Democratic strategy. This is just political reality now.

It’s true Republicans didn’t want politics racialized, but Democrats did, so they racialized it, and now to be discussing electoral reality you have to keep the racial facts in mind and to hell with whoever tries to make you wear a politically correct blindfold.

entagor on February 6, 2013 at 11:25 PM

Truth, truth and more truth.

If there were a will to secure the border among the political class it would have been accomplished long ago.

claudius on February 7, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Right. The task would have been trivially easy if they wanted to succeed.

They could even have called it Operation Wetback Plus. Not that that would have been a smooth diplomatic move, but when America really is determined to do something, like support Israel, it does, and nobody cares what “the world” thinks.

Look at how Israel deals with unwanted immigration.

My point is that if the political class really wanted to secure the border, they’d act in the same spirit as when they block a UN resolution condemning Israel. They’d just do it.

When you have a military like America’s, it’s not a practical issue. All the “practical issues” and “diplomatic issues” and “moral issues” are just cover for a political class that doesn’t want to act.

One of those cumulative effects is growing support for more mass immigration. Immigrants are predominantly Democrat voters, if only because 90% of them are non-white and 80% of non-whites vote Democratic. The Democratic Party wants more mass immigration because that means more power for the increasingly non-white groups it represents, and because (duh!) it wants more voters on its side.

It’s a virtuous cycle from the Democratic point of view, and a vicious cycle from the Republican point of view.

At any rate the Republicans are prepared to cave on amnesty, and the weight of 25 million illegal aliens on Obamacare along with a porous border will likely produce a financial collapse. It’s not like we haven’t fought against this eventuality, we’re just outnumbered by the empty-headed products of public education.

What the conspirators want to do is put the illegals at the front of the line, which action will just bring more illegals behind them.

Enough of the baloney about checking this or that! Even when they find criminality or fraud or tax evasion, those noble senators plan to do nothing about it.

Illegals will be in large part poor, uneducated, dependent and criminal. The children and young mothers will be a special drain since they bring in no net income.

As for “breaking up families”, it’s not our fault the parents decided that US law did not apply to them. Everytime we send someone to jail we are breaking up families. Please stop whining about that.

You’re completely nuts. Please snap out of it.

sartana on February 6, 2013 at 6:55 PM

You’re seriously backpedelling here.

Lincoln was talking about the Know Nothings. Perhaps you don’t recognize whom they were, but if you lived in Lincoln’s day, you’d be one of them, and proud of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_%28politics%29

Lincoln’s letter isn’t a founding document either. And I read nothing in the Constitution that says we cannot boot every foreigner out of the country, and I read nothing that says we cannot make every foreigner who wants to become one a citizen.

That’s the argument we are in now.

As for the Lazarus poem, it precisely describes the USA that my Sicilian forebear came to become part of, the one that Lincoln extolled, and the one that was denied, by the Alien and Chinese Exclusion Act, to my wife’s family for many years.

You and your friends have already lost the battle you are trying to wage in this matter. They are here, they’ve had children, and those children are becoming voters.

George W. Bush was the first to suggest this and was immediately thrown under the bus by the “principled” conservatives among us. Now we will get all of the amnesty without any of the border security. Thanks numbnuts.

mike_NC9 on February 6, 2013 at 9:11 PM

George Bush called men who staked out the border looking for illegal crossers ‘vigilantes’ and cracked down on them

Bush also made sure the fence was a farce

Bush also slithered in the NAFTA Superhighway and personal, non treaty agreements with the Mexican leaders

It was Bush who pushed for the re election of Arlen Specter, in return for Specter’s cooperation in slimeballing amnesty through, against the wishes of the public. Via McCain they tried twice to sneak in votes over holiday weekends and it was only through heroic efforts by people such as Michelle Malkin, who created this web site, that Bush’s dirty efforts were stopped. Now two of the slimey characters involved in the Bush scams, McCain and Graham are teaming up with Rubio for another try

That they are loading the MSM with spin about public acceptance is a sign the public does not accept this dirty game. They are increasing the propaganda, in preparation for another rigged game.

If the public wanted amnesty, there would be no problem repealing all our border and immigration law tomorrow, The Senate would vote yea, and Obama would sign off in a blink. The laws are still on the books because the pols know it would cause a rebellion if they repealed

They have to play the amnesty sob song because the public doesn’t want this open border enema

Bush did not like the law, so he interfered with enforcment. Obama was not the first lawless President

By the way, Rush is correct. Obama is suckering the GOP on amnesty. It is one more wedge issue Obama is using to divert from the economy and budget, and to break apart the GOP. On this Obama may well succeed, because there will be no reconciliation on the issue

Your aversion to principle has been noted.

I didn’t say the Lincoln quote means nothing to me. I said it has no bearing on the present discussion. There is absolutely no correlation between the emancipation of the Negro and the question of passing an Amnesty for tens of millions of foreigners who have broken into our country or abused our hospitality by overstaying a visitors visa.

It’s the Lazarus poem that means nothing to me. It’s not a Founding document. It is not Federal law. It’s nothing but the scribblings of a deranged Leftist. If she were alive today, she’s be Debbie Wasserman Slutz.

And until you chimed in, no one here mentioned “brown-skinned people”. It’s your side that is obsessed with race and who use this issue to shut down opposition to your insane schemes.

It’s you and your tiny minority of “recidivist” extremist Open-Borders advocates who are engaged in sedition through the destruction of American sovereignty who need to snap out of it and wake to see reality. Never in recorded history has such a scheme been attempted- to give full citizenship to tens of millions of foreigners who have broken into a country and begin making demands upon the host population. You haven’t even thought about the repercussions. You’re like Nancy Pelosi chasing the Great Whale of universal healthcare so artists no longer have to work.

You’re completely nuts. Please snap out of it.

Their kids have listened to us — and responded by becoming Democrats. My own niece is a fine example — the child of those imprisoned by the Democrats in relocation camps, she is a Democrat — because the Republicans make noises nowadays which sound exactly like the Democrats did in the 1940s.

unclesmrgol on February 6, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Thanks for the insight. We shall just keep slogging.

Uncle Smeagol. You’re quote of Lincoln has nothing no bearing on my comment, or the current Amnesty debate, in any way.

The stupid Lazarus poem means nothing to me.

sartana on February 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Heh. I know neither mean anything to you — and that’s the big point I’m making here. Thank you for adding the exclaimation marks!

unfortunately, therein lies the rub. those comments are cherry picked by the LSM, and furthered by plants at forums like this.

What to do?

WryTrvllr on February 6, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Let’s take a run through the comments here. I think we can easily bin them into two groups — in favor of easy immigration, and against easy immigration.

The numbers will speak both to the problem and to the inability for Republicans to come up with a solution.

Once upon a time, it was the Democrats who spouted this stuff — which is why Executive Order 9066 — FDR’s most Unconstitutional pander to racism — came into existence. It was the Democratic Governor of California — Earl Warren — who advocated for the complete evacuation of every person of Japanese ancestry from California. J Edgar told FDR that he had complete tabs on the Japanese and Japanese American population and that there was no possibility of sabotage.

FDR’s acts turned the Japanese American population into reliable Republicans for several decades — not that many were not already Republicans — you can read the story of Tokyo Rose — Iva Toguri — to understand that. As a Republican expatriate in Japan, she refused to renounce her citizenship — and, when the war ended, she was convicted on the testimony of two Japanese Americans who HAD renounced their citizenship — and their membership in the Democratic Party.

Their kids have listened to us — and responded by becoming Democrats. My own niece is a fine example — the child of those imprisoned by the Democrats in relocation camps, she is a Democrat — because the Republicans make noises nowadays which sound exactly like the Democrats did in the 1940s.