Jun 29 2007
GOP As Popular As Amnesty Bill
Updates Below
Think America wants the GOP shoved down their throats any more than the immigration bill? Apprently it is a worthwhile question now that they are as popular as the immigration bill:
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 26-27, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. LV = likely voters. Except where noted, results below are among registered voters.
“Do you approve or disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing?
6/26-27/07
Approve : 30
Disapprove: 56
Unsure: 14
LOL! There’s a success. The GOP destroyed itself by making it as popular as the Bill it defeated. Combine that news with the fact the GOP lost ground over the last month to the Dems in the generic ballot question, going from a 7 point to a 12 point deficit, and one thing is becoming clear: the GOP is not very popular right now. About as popular as ‘amnesty’.
Update: Some GOP’ers are in the bliss of ignorance, saying not to worry! Whistling past the grave? Who knows. CNN has the GOP down 12 points too: 53-41. Two polls, same dismal result. And look at the Presidential head-to-heads. Earlier this year the GOP always led. Now the Dems have a slight edge across the board. Nothing here folks. Just ignore it!! About as truthful as ‘enforce the laws’!
Major Update: Well, the polls are already showing the damage is done and growing with hispanics – a group the GOP needs some support from it they have any hope of winning any non-House races:
According to poll of 502 Hispanics in the field from June 2 through 24, President Bush’s approval rating among this population is 29 percent — low, but not significantly lower than the 32 percent showing Bush puts up among all Americans in Gallup polling. However, when we move from topline results on down to some more internals from the poll, the problems for the Republicans become more clear.
The Gallup survey indicates that 42 percent of Hispanics self-identify as Democrats while a mere 11 percent self-identify as Republican; 39 percent self-identify as Independent. When Independents were asked towards which party, if either, they lean, the Democrats’ numbers go up to 58 percent among Hispanics while the Republicans’ climb to just 20 percent — a remarkable spread. When polling one potential head-to-head contest, that between the Republican Rudy Giuliani and the Democrat Hillary Clinton (who by far garners the greatest support among Hispanics in a Democratic primary, though that could be a facet of her significantly higher name recognition), Clinton leads 66 percent to 27 percent — a far greater margin than the 50 percent to 45 percent spread by which she leads Giuliani among all Americans.
There is a way to fix this. The amnesty hypochondriacs will never face up to it. As long as there is no immigration bill – basically as it is now – then there is no way to demonstrate good faith with these VOTERS (not illegal immigrants). And even if the far right did all of a sudden realize the damage they did and tried to correct it, why would Harry Reid let them?
Terrye’s argument trying to equate today’s immigration with that of the 19th century is so full of holes that it should be melted on a sandwich, not used as an example of today’s immigration issue. She says herself, that the immigrants of yesteryear were trying to escape “civil, racial and religious persecution in their native lands”. That is not the case today. The Latinos, who make up 80% of illegal immigrants, are not trying to escape any of those things. They are not running FROM something, they are running TO something and the something is money that they know will be greater than what they earn in their native lands. A second major difference is political view point. The immigration of the past were running FROM oppressive goverments where they had no hope of changing that due to lack of economic power. The new wave of immigrations do not have that distinction. They have the power to change their government, a fact that Hugo Chavez is becoming rapidly aware of as over 20,000 shouted down his government at a stadium yesterday with shouts of “Freedom”. The number of illegal immigrants who come here for persecution reasons are relatively small. The drive is economics, pure and simple. So there are just two of the differences.
Terrye wants to point out that 300,000 Italian speaking people joined the military (since there is no link for her numbers, I assume she cannot back that statement up, oh wait, she says she is informed, which simply means someone told her that and she has no proof, as usual) but what she doesn’t tell you is that the second generations of immigrants prior to say the 1970’s almost always used English as their first language and when they marched into the streets of Paris they were greeted as Americans, not some hyphenated hybrid. What she did not say is that English became the symbol of assimilation in immigrants who learned it as quickly as possible, equating English with success and becoming an American and there is another difference in the two waves of immigrants.
When the Irish came, many were turned away. Unlike those who swim the Rio Grande, they suffered on “coffin” ships for many months and the ones who made it were not home free yet. They had to go through ports of entry like Ellis Island, be subjected to a medical exam (anyone unhealthy was turned away and returned to Ireland) and during one period of time, could not enter the U.S. unless they had $200.00 cold hard cash on them. Once here, they were not granted citizenship just because they had managed to get here. Many never became citizens for a number of reasons; some were just too old to learn English well enough to pass the citizenship test, some just wanted to work and go back to their native land when things got better and some were just too lazy (but not many). Those that had it the easiest were the Irish, who had already spoke English in Ireland. But Ireland was also a nation that was torn, partly because it was ruled by a foreign government (the British) and partly because it was a nation divided by language.
The immigrants of the 19th century made no demands on their new home land other than being able to work. They did not march in the streets demanding social services they were not entitled to, they did not ruin the hospital systems by using them for skinned knees, hangovers, spinters in a finger. They sent their children to school and their children were taught in English and they did not demand that their children be provided with teachers who spoke their native tongue. Were there teachers who spoke their native tongue? Yes, but only because those teachers already knew the language and not because of any demands placed on the schools by the immigrants.
And the one big difference between the immigrants of the 19-20th centuries and the immigrants of today? Respect. Respect for the nation that had taken them. Respect for the rule of law (and don’t throw up the gangs of Five Points, I know they existed, but they were choir boys compared to MS-13). And they did not demand that which they were not entitled to have. Just a job. Not citizenship, not free social services, not anything we have seen in the new crop of immigrants.
The Irish probably example the greatest wave of immigrants in the past due to the potato famine (the potato being their main substanance). But the Irish also represent the largest group of Americans who have returned to their native land (Ireland in the 20-21st century).
If those who want to immigrat to America are willing to stand in line (as the past ones did at Ellis Island), be subjected to a medical exam and show proof that they can support themselves until they are settled, I have no problem with that.
But Terrye, if you are going to use past immigration as a baseline, at least learn something about it besides your pro-amnesty talking points.
“I can tell you with great confidence there were no illegals voting in that elction and for that matter any fraud as to that election was quite low.”
Patently ridiculous. There is no way you can know who voted from other states, whether they were or were not citizens, you’re trying to claim knowledge of something you have no way of having.
“I am talking about the shift of Natiowide African American vote from a Republican to a Democrat.”
But you’re talking about a shift in 1932 which defeated Hoover and elected FDR, this big shift you’re talking about occurred in 1936, not ’32. Since it was after Hoover was already out of office, your whole thesis is ficticious.
Also this quote:
“First remember that black folks were not able to vote in great numbers in Mississippi in 1928 to say the least. In fact about only 6 percent of black could vote in Mississippi at the time. Also remember that the Democrat Party in Mississippi was all white by law. Thus making it even more difficult for the small amount of black officeholders.”
actually takes away from your argument, remember this massive swing of blacks from Repub to Dim got FDR elected. If there was practically no black voters in the election how could it have made a difference even if 100% shifted. No again, the big shift was in 1936 when the depression was the determining factor. Now I’m not going to say the depression didn’t cause a big shift. It certainly did, but then that wouldn’t support that it was the action of a Repub Pres (who was not the Pres at the time) caused the big shift. You can attempt to re-write history, but you won’t get a taker unless it at least makes sense. Put up some numbers in your argument that show that there was a large change in Black vote in Ms, La, Ar in 32 vs 28 and that that difference swung those states from Rep to Dem. then I can buy your thesis. Otherwise, I can’t buy it. Just because you might like it to be that way to prove a point ain’t gonna make it happen.
Terrye, quit trying to make it a racial issue, Big Lsu just made a claim and you chiming in trying to make it a racial issue shows your lack of mentality.
I thought you skipped over what I write and don’t respond to me. You trying to suck up to Big Lsu Guy for a reason. Go on back and polish AJ’s apples for him. You’re adding nothing to the discussion. Racist generally don’t add much.
BigLsuGuy, go ahead and comment, I’m gonna be announcing some ball games for the next few hours and be away, but I’ll respond later.
have a good day.
FE, Terrye is trying to play five card draw with four jokers and a race card. I leave it up to you to decide who the four jokers are.
Terrye
Excellent post. Coming from a State where so many people have a non Anglo background it gets infuriating how many people have forgotten their own history. I find it ironic that people call this “pulling the race card”. While the race card or ethnic card” is being pulled all the time by some that oppose this bill. The argument of “pulling the race card” is just a conservative version of Political Correctness often enough. That is a attempt to shut down discussion of the obvious around us.
In the end the proponents of Comprehensive immigration reform find themselves in a curious position. They are opposed by the far extremes on both sides. The far left finds our proposals too harsh and not emphatic to the immigrant. The other political extremes accuses us of being sell outs, of having hidden motivations etc.
That is why it takes political courage to deal with this issue.
Enforcement:
“Patently ridiculous. There is no way you can know who voted from other states, whether they were or were not citizens, you’re trying to claim knowledge of something you have no way of having.”
Enforcement thereis no evidence at all that non citizens voted at any significant levels in the New Orleans Mayor election. Why they would vote for Ray Nagin is beyond me even if they could. That everything is about the illegals. Admit that and that is the first step toward recovery
“But you’re talking about a shift in 1932 which defeated Hoover and elected FDR, this big shift you’re talking about occurred in 1936, not ‘32. Since it was after Hoover was already out of office, your whole thesis is ficticious.”
The Shift was well underway because of Hoover’s broken promises.
As to your comment about Black voters in Louisiana and Missisippi. That is not the key . First we started to see the shift of attitudes. THe Black community had finally had enough of the Republican Party that in the end was not looking out for them epsecially in the deep South. This process started way before these events. THis was the straw that broke the camels back and started the shift in thinking.
What is significant is that large amount of these former “nonvoters” after about 18 months of displacement went up North in the one of the largest migrations of people we have ever seen in this Country. They went to Northern Cities and thus became voters where they could not vote before
Again the point is that little things matter. No one would have predicted that these events and GOP leaderships reaction to it would start to cause massive shifts in voter alliegance. Of course the anger was building up for some time. Much of this is of course with cause.
Biglsufan, who made immigration reform a race issue? Was it the KKK or followers of David Duke? Or was it the millions who marched in our cities with signs saying they were going to “reconquest” our nation and being funded by a socialist group, United For Peace and Justice? Who pushed for ballots in Spanish? Who pushed for signs at businesses like Wal-Mart in Spanish? Who is it that calls their own organization “The Race”? And why, if these organizers are not pushing their own socialistic view points, would they align themselves with groups, like UPJ, that are?
Here is a news flash; Hispanics do not think of themselves as anything but caucasian (results can be found at Pew) and being Hispanic is not a race, it is a nationality.
I heard a guy on a radio show yesterday that said he had a right to be here (illegally) because Americans can travel between states and that is a right. Nevermind he does not recognize the sovereignty of a nation. He said he was taught in Mexico that he had a right to go anywhere he wanted and he didn’t think his government was wrong on that issue.
The race issue was drummed up by the organizations who tout being matizmo (sp?). That is Mexico’s answer to the Cherokees but the number of native Indian Mexicans is small and they are also looked down on in their own nation.
Now, who on the “enforcement first” side is pushing this as a race issue? I really don’t care what nation an illegal comes from. And I think that immigrants from other nations should be allowed entry, legal entry. But to be honest with you, the over 8,000 illegal Irishmen here in the U.S. should be made to enter legally or leave. How is that “racist”?
Remember this, biglsufan, when we no longer enforce some laws, we will be unable to enforce any of the laws.
Ok, I am now at the library and have access to the book.Again any lover of American History and are just curious of why things are the way they are today should Read Rising Tide by John Barry.
It is a very well documented book. This is just one aspect. It also goes into what many Southerners knew about the Klan and the power struggle by the Southern Ruling class and politicians to control it and fight it. People forget that the Klan was often the result of Populism gone mad
My main focus here is how the GOP has made mistakes in the past and we should not repeat them here as to hispanics. This is a fine lesson in fumbling and mistakes. That we are starting to see signs of in Hispanic Republican oriented Florida for instance.
Chapt 35
“Al Smiths nominations provided an opportunity for both a historic Republican Landslide and to create a competitive Republican party in the South-a “lily white” republican party. After securing the nomination with black support, Hoover moved to build such a party.
“It began with a deal with white Mississippi Republicans at the National convention, a deal know to Hoover when he talked to Moten”. ” THe white Mississippians sought credentials. Instead an an assistant attorney general who chaired the Creditentitals committee seated Perry Howard, a black National committeman from Mississippi who supported Hoover, The Whites did not protestr. A few weeks later the same assistant Attorney Genral indicted him for selling patronage jobs. ( A white Mississippi jury later accuited him”
“This Incident combined with continued attacks fromt he Chicago defender oon Hoovers role in Flood relief aroused anger among blacks.
“As Hoovers aids pursued the Southern strategy a wedge opened between Blacks and the Republican party.
In 1928 Hoover had alreasy lost 15 percent of the black votes. Major black paers such as the Baltimore Afro American, the Boston Guardian, and the Louisville NEws all endorsed Smith
I will skip the the litany of Hoovers bad moves after 28 but of interest is the nomination of a blatent racist to the Supreme Court and severe cuts to the 10th Cavarly the famous all black combat Unit that would force more black combat soilders into servile roles to white officers.
“In 1932, Moton Refused to endorse Hoover for relection. That year Hoover received a majority of the black vote, but he had driven a wedge btween Republicans and even the most loyal black leaders that was splitting them asunder”
One final note. If one picks up Rising Tide be sure to go to the Index and read the section on immigrants. The often forgotten ,except by the old, mistreatment of Italians and prejudice is very well recorded. Italian immigratns were resented and much of the same arguments made against hispanics today were made against them. Lynchings were not as to blacks and others in the South
11 Italains were lynched in New Orleans in 1891, Five were lynched in Tallulah Louisana, 3 in hahanville Louisian in 1891. In 1907 the situation got so out of hand the Italian govt demanded a investigation
AJ I have said this over and over again and I hope someday you will understand how most people really feel. Those of us who where around in 1986 had amnesty rammed down our throats whith no solution which has lead us to the problem we have today. Even Pres. Regan admitted it was a mistake. Americans are very tolerant people and we have no problems with immigrants, but if you don’t fix the problem americans will not put up with illegals. FIX THE BOARDERS FIRST THEN COME BACK WITH YOUR AMNESTY PLAN!
Hmmmmm, let’s see, whom do I believe?
AJ…or Fred Barnes & Democratic Pollster Stan Greenburg:
“Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found that a majority of Republicans and independents opposed the immigration bill. Democrats were split evenly.
Worse for Democrats, the poll suggested the reelection of some Democratic members of Congress might be jeopardized if they backed immigration
reform. “Demagogic attacks are not ineffective,” Greenberg found. “In terms of the battleground districts, immigration attacks are more likely to play a key role in Democratic rural and exurban districts where opposition towards immigration is stronger and Democrats hold a smaller advantage.”,/b>
So Democrats in Washington, with the exception of Kennedy and senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Ken Salazar of Colorado, were not enthusiastic about the bill. Reid was lukewarm at best. And all five Democrats running for reelection in red states in 2008–Max Baucus of Montana, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia–voted to kill the bill.
The entire article is worth reading:
Things Fall Apart
Test
Just to be Fair however, and show BOTH sides, as some will NOT; this is also from the same article:
“While opposition to the bill may aid individual senators, it clearly undercuts Republican efforts to capture the Hispanic vote. Hispanics paid close attention to the Senate deliberations, and while Democrats–Reid especially–bear some of the responsibility for the bill’s downfall, Republicans bear more. After all, the leading Republican foes claimed credit for the bill’s demise.
Hispanics are the fastest-growing voting bloc in the country, and they are basically swing voters. According to exit polls, they voted 44 percent for Bush in 2004 but only 29 percent for Republican congressional candidates in 2006. As a result of Republicans’ role in killing the immigration bill, “I believe we’re reinforcing everything” that brought us to 29 percent, said Graham, one of the bill’s architects. He’s right about that.”
Test again for BOLD!
AJ,
I always respect your analysis, and on most issues I agree with you 1o0%. I just think you ar emissing something here. I am glad that this bill failed because while it did have some good ideas, it just wasn’t good enough. The push to make it totally comprehensive just doesn’t make sense to me in this case. It is too complex of a problem that has been going on for far too long with way too many moving parts to just slam all of the provisions of the now dead bill through. This problem has to be solved over time — Secure the border (not as big of a contributor to illegal immigration as the “hypochondriachs” like to make it out to be. While the border (North and South) is being fortified, we need to build a process to identify and detain/deport those who overstay their visa’s, Canadians included, and especially those from countries of interest. Create a real, robust employee verification system for all new hires at any company. Then let’s get normalization going in a way that is compassionate but has our nation’s interest and security first. Probably a 3-5 year process.
Forget about triggers. If Congress is capable of reforming immagration in a deliberate, reasonable way, I’m all for it. It that possible in the current DC climate? I’m not so sure. But I am confident that this is the only way forward. Any “comprehensive” one bill solution will probably get the same response next time around.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this AJ.
“Even Pres. Regan admitted it was a mistake.”
Can someone provide a link on this. Michael Reagan seems to be the only one that “says” this conversation occurred. But yet I have never seen one thing from the Reagan Library or his papers or hois post Presidential papers where Reagan said this. It might have occured but I rarely see any eveidence of it
AJ – This defeat can be either a total disaster or tremendous success for our Republican party and it is the president alone that has the power and responsibility to make that decision.
I see the defeat of the amnesty bill as a great opportunity, as well as a disastrous threat, to the future of our Republican Party. Rasmussen says that 80% of the people support securing the border first and President Bush already has enough existing law on the books that will take us far towards that goal, speaking specifically about the fence law of 2006 which deals largely with Mexican border fencing which the public sees being irritatingly penetrated every night on their TV’s.
President Bush alone has the Power and responsibility to get this job done but he has never wanted a secure border with Mexico and I don’t believe he ever will. What President Bush fails to recognize is that by refusing to enforce our existing laws he is leaving himself wide open to impeachment charges when the very first terrorist or bomb goes off in the USA that is proven to have come into our country across the Mexican border. His good buddy, Ted Kennedy and the other Democrats, along with our very own backstabbing Senate Republican Amnesty Bill supporters will be demanding the immediate Impeachment of Bush to cover their own butts. We must change our president’s mind and do what ever is necessary to prevent this from happening because it will totally destroy our chances in the 2008 elections. A Mexican bomb will be a glorious event with the MSM and the Democrats. Just remember connecting the dots after 911???
Somehow, we must change our president’s mind and get him to declare that implementing the fence law of 2006 has been moved to the top of his agenda. Perhaps a declaration that he is going to completed this fence in 6 months and will issue an executive order, if necessary, to overcome any and all obstacles that stands in his way.
Our president would immediately regain the support of his base, get the support of 80% of the people, eliminate the impeachment threat he has brought upon himself and set the stage to wipe out the Congressional Democrats in the 2008 elections if they support the president and promise to deal with the balance of the immigration issues, one at a time, when they win back congress in 2008.
President Bush alone has this power and responsibility. It is our responsibility to make him understand the potential disaster, or opportunity, that has been created by his clay pigeon amnesty bill blunder. Somehow, we must make this happen!!
“Somehow, we must change our president’s mind and get him to declare that implementing the fence law of 2006 has been moved to the top of his agenda. Perhaps a declaration that he is going to completed this fence in 6 months and will issue an executive order, if necessary, to overcome any and all obstacles that stands in his way.”
As I have pointed out there is a segment of people on the border mainly landowners that are screaming that the Govt is moving to fast. That in fact the Govt is violating the law by taking in their concerns as to the fence and how it shall be conducted. This is all been talked about several times.
Bush cannot a issue that violates a Congressional Law. That provision was put in by “amnetesy” Opponent Kay Baily Hutchinson. If people have a problem with that law they need to take up with her