Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Winning with Immigration (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Winning with Immigration
emarkp
Member
Member # 461

 - posted      Profile for emarkp     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm stumped with how false and full of lies and bad logic this piece is. I don't know why OSC has such a blind spot on this topic, but everything I've seen that he's written on this topic has been just as awful.

A few points:

quote:
But the Republican loathing for Spanish-speaking immigrants has been so virulent that Hispanic voters have no choice but to vote for the Democrats, even though they actually dislike almost every position the Democrats take.

Oh, I know: Officially, the Republican position isn't anti-immigrant, it's only against illegal immigrants.

But hispanics aren't stupid. They remember the "English-only" movement; they hear Republicans talking about immigrants who only come to America to get on welfare. These views don't single out illegal immigrants. They attack all hispanic immigrants.

This is of course just flat out lies. The evidence is that all recent immigrants tend to favor big government policies with handouts. (Summary here or here, report here.)

Mocking the idea of differentiating between illegal aliens and legal immigrants is repugnant, and insinuating that really all R's are anti-hispanic is disgusing, false, and foul. It's no better reasoning than mocking Christians who say "hate the sin, love the sinner", saying "really they hate anyone who isn't perfect." It's low-brow pejorative.

"English-only" used to be called "assimilation" -- you know, actually joining a country in a melting pot, instead of creating a balkanized country of separate language and culture. Here in California, experience showed that bilingual education actually resulted in much slower assimilation and lower grades. Once we switched to rapid assimilation in schools, achievement improved and costs went down.


Surely OSC also thinks that Bill Cosby is really racist when he tells black youth to speak proper English instead of "black English", right? I'm sure he's consistent there?

quote:
It's hard to cast a vote for a party full of bigots who clearly hate you for your brown skin and your Spanish accent. They recognize that all the talk about "enforcement before reform" and "no amnesty" is really a thin disguise for "ship 'em all back home."
No it's not, but Card apparently feels he must continue with lies. We tried amnesty to fix the problem in 1986, and it resulted in a massive wave of immigration that's vast compared to the problem then. And on top of that, the share of R votes from hispanics in 1988 was less than it was in 1984, thus proving OSC false that it's a winning political strategy.

"Enforcement first" means just that. It means establishing actual control over our border (like every other country in the world), have an immigration policy, and actually enforce it. Crazy talk, I know. It means learning from history, and remembering that when Reagan signed the amnesty that promised the border would get fixed, we never got a secured border.

quote:
If our economy didn't need those workers, they wouldn't have been able to find jobs here, and if they hadn't known there were jobs here, they wouldn't have come and they wouldn't have stayed.
Yes, there have been jobs here, and the flood of immigration (primarily from Mexico) has driven down wages to the point where you have to live in squalor to subsist on the wages in question, so the only people who take the jobs are those who are used to squalor. Rather than raising Mexico's standard of living, you're driving down that of the United States. This is what happened when Germany reunified. The poor of East Germany mixed with the relatively wealthy West Germany, driving down wages and causing economic stagnation for decades.

See, if we could have a reasonable rate of immigration, we could find a rate which doesn't completely flood the labor market, fragment the culture, and lower the standard of living. But I guess that would be racist. Or something.

quote:
I mean making it possible for anyone who wants to live honestly and work hard to enter the country legally
So if 6 Billion people want to live in the US, you're okay with that? There should be no limit on how many people can immigrate? Nonsense. Last I checked, legal immigration was over 1 million per year. I think that's a pretty good number, but there's room for debate about the right number. OSC apparently believes that numbers are racist.

quote:
But don't call it "amnesty." These people haven't committed a crime, they've been providing for their families. In order to do that, they sacrificed everything they had and risked their lives to get here. And the whole time they've been here, they've had to live furtively, unable to call on the police to protect them, exploited by unprincipled employers and rapacious criminals.
Ah yes, the racist of the white man's burden. The soft side of racism. Pity the poor brown people being taken advantage of by evil whitey.

Let me list some crimes that a racist like OSC ignore: document fraud, tax fraud, and of course re-entering after a deportation order is a felony.

But a racist like Card think that hispanics are more like animals than people--they really don't know how to follow laws, so it's not their fault when they violate them. They're really more like pets than people. Disgusting.


Like Card, I served a mission in South America. The people I met there were fully capable of working for their families, making good and bad decisions, and following the law. I don't think they're pets. I don't judge people as a group like he does of Republicans, Republican leaders and talk-show hosts. I'm confident I can evaluate them individually. I'm not a racist like he is.

Posts: 36 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree, OSC is repeating the same lies that the left uses:

-that there are supposedly jobs that Americans refuse to work. Fact: the majority of every job type in the US is staffed by American citizens.

-that legal latino-American citizens care about immigration reform. Polling shows it isn't even in their top 10 concerns and many of them are OPPOSED to amnesty because they had to wait and go through the legal process and they don't want criminals rewarded.

-that this is some kind of racial issue. It's not.

-that there won't be another illegal surge after an amnesty. We KNOW there will be because there have been after every amnesty and mini-amnesty we've done. If we amnestize the 11 million now, the estimates show another 50 million will be waiting for the next amnesty by 2030.

OSC, shame on you, I usually agree with most of what you write but you are dead wrong here and you are parroting the lies of the Amnesty-left.

And I say that as a half Japanese, part black and part Jew 3rd generation American.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please show me the polling that shows that " legal latino-American citizens" don't care about immigration reform.

Most Americans favor immigration reform. Global Strategy Group/Basswood Research found that 74 percent of voters will be disappointed if Congress does not pass immigration reform (February 2014). If you don't like that source because it is Democratic, how about Fox News?
quote:
“Which of the following comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward undocumented immigrants currently in the United States?”, 68 percent of Americans favored a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants in the country if they meet requirements such as paying back taxes and passing background checks
link
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll find the polling source I was referring to tomorrow when I have time.

If we reward the illegals who are here now with amnesty, how do we stop 50 million from coming in for the next amnesty by 2030?

We were promised after the 1986 amnesty that the border would be secured and we'd never need another amnesty again.

Edit: I think this is it: http://www.mediaite.com/online/sorry-gop-immigration-reform-won%E2%80%99t-win-you-the-latino-vote/

[ March 31, 2014, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A somewhat different picture is in the details of the data that you assert substantiates your point:

quote:
In the USA TODAY survey, Latino registered voters who immigrated say by almost 5-to-1 that the government should do more to solve our country's problems (a generally liberal view) rather than saying the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses (a generally conservative view).

Among registered Hispanic voters who are the U.S.-born children of immigrants, that ratio narrows to nearly 2-1.

And among those whose parents were born in the U.S., the split is about even.

The totality of your evidence is that if you take one poll by Gallup and strip out the Hispanic US citizens who are not registered to vote, you find that in 2012 the remaining group was more concerned with 1) healthcare, 2) unemployment, 3) economic growth and 4) the gap between rich and poor than they were with immigration policy. Of course, you also need to exclude the other poll cited showing that 58% of Latino voters “now rate immigration reform as the most important issue they want Congress and the President to address.”

This is your compelling evidence?

[ March 31, 2014, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClintonKing
New Member
Member # 6735

 - posted      Profile for ClintonKing   Email ClintonKing       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I personally think that our country could use more immigrants; I don't see a problem with adding 50 million people tomorrow. I believe that more people generally means more ideas, more resources, and a better life for everyone.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In California Spanish speaking immigrants are usually called Hispanics and come from or through Mexico. In a state like Florida, they are usually called Latinos and may come from Cuba or Puerto Rico. Assuming that regions in which most people speak some dialect of Spanish are all alike makes as much sense as to say Americans must be just like Australians or Scots because most people in those countries speak English.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oyarsa
Member
Member # 1871

 - posted      Profile for Oyarsa   Email Oyarsa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, Orson Scott Card purposefully writes in a way that's antagonistic to get people to respond to him, to defend their position. And those who are against immigration reform really do have some explaining to do.

Mostly because the immigration laws are bad laws. They make it virtually impossible to become an American citizen unless you cheat. People can--and have--spent their entire lives unsuccessfully trying to become American citizens, good people, people who would work hard, start businesses, innovate. ClintonKing is right. Immigration is a good thing. The same people who "took our jobs" are also renting, buying cars, food, paying sales tax, etc.

From my perspective, there are a lot of low paying jobs available that U.S. citizens won't take. I work in a state with 6% unemployment, and we can't fill positions at my place of employment. It's a direct care job, and it's not easy. But it's work, and it's work that pays competitively once all the entry-level requirements are met.

But too many people won't even bother filling out an application. Because it's a job that's beneath them. I also work part-time as a tax preparer, and it's the same situation. We're in desperate need of help, but all my unemployed friends don't consider it a fancy enough career choice.

No, immigrants aren't stealing all the jobs. They are working jobs that spoiled, over-educated, under-skilled Americans won't touch.

(I also think the Obama Administration's anti-free market ethos are hurting the job market. But half of the problem is people unwilling to start at the bottom and work their way up.)

Yes, illegal immigration is a safety concern. So having wide open borders is a bad idea. Not all immigrants are beacons of virtue, either. Some are criminals, terrorists, drug runners, gang members... But many illegal immigrants (the ones I know personally) are genuinely good people, who do work hard, are too prideful to take government hand-outs, and just want a fair shot at being citizens.

I think we should secure the borders as much as possible. That's what went wrong before with amnesty under Reagan. Then we can require the amnesty candidates to have a grasp of the English language, a good work ethic, no ongoing habits of eating up public funds or abusing the American health care system, plus a clean criminal history.

But even the most reasonable reforms have been shot down by people I usually consider to be my allies. For crying out loud, if we won't even allow kids who were brought to the U.S. as toddlers, who speak fluent English, have graduated high school, who have clean criminal records and work 40, 50, 60 hour a week jobs without touching public assistance to have a shot at citizenship because "they broke the law" - then we're being bullheaded and heartless for the sake of a bad law.

Posts: 22 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are factually wrong.

There is no sector of employment in the US in which the majority of workers are NOT US citizens.

We also let in a lot of people legally every year. Over 1 million. How is that not enough? Do you contend we can successfully absorb every single person who wants to come in all at once?

The reason many want to come here is because we have the kind of lawful society and strong economy that does not allow unregulated immigration. Get rid of that and you get rid of the reasons people want to come here!

Most of the world is poor, but the US cannot absorb them. The job of the US is to be an example to the rest of the world in favor of liberty, democracy and capitalism.

Maybe our immigration system needs reform, but it cannot include any subversion of our rule of law or else our law means nothing.

There are literally thousands of laws I disagree with, but I do not break them just because I don't like them!

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
You are factually wrong.

There is no sector of employment in the US in which the majority of workers are NOT US citizens.

immigrationimpact.com

quote:
Of the approximately 2 to 2.5 million agricultural workers on U.S. farms and ranches, over one-half lack authorized immigration status. These farmworkers, like millions of Americans before them, immigrated to the United States to find opportunities and create a better life for their families. Farmworkers work extremely hard, yet their opportunities are limited by their immigration status. Farm work is often physically taxing with high injury, illness and fatality rates due to hazardous workplace conditions. Wages are very low and poverty among farmworkers is roughly double that of all wage and salary employees. Because of their fear of deportation, undocumented workers are unlikely to challenge illegal or dangerous employment practices or seek improved wages or working conditions. The presence of so many vulnerable farmworkers depresses wages and working conditions for all farmworkers, including the hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants.
ajc.com

quote:
After enacting House Bill 87, a law designed to drive illegal immigrants out of Georgia, state officials appear shocked to discover that HB 87 is, well, driving a lot of illegal immigrants out of Georgia.

It might be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Thanks to the resulting labor shortage, Georgia farmers have been forced to leave millions of dollars’ worth of blueberries, onions, melons and other crops unharvested and rotting in the fields. It has also put state officials into something of a panic at the damage they’ve done to Georgia’s largest industry.

time.com

quote:
Roughly 70% of the 1.2 million people employed by the agriculture industry are undocumented. No U.S. industry is more dependent on undocumented immigrants. But acute labor shortages brought on by anti-immigration measures threaten to heap record losses on an industry emerging from years of stiff foreign competition. Nationwide, labor shortages will result in losses of up to $9 billion, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was slightly off, what I should have said was there are no sectors where illegals are the majority of laborers, and of the 472 separate occupations there are only 6 occupations where non-American LEGAL immigrants have majority presence, and that only accounts for a whopping 1% of the US workforce.

http://cis.org/are-there-really-jobs-americans-wont-do

quote:
This analysis tests the often-made argument that immigrants do only jobs Americans don't want. If the argument is correct, there should be occupations comprised entirely or almost entirely of immigrants (legal and illegal). But Census Bureau data collected from 2009 to 2011, which allows for detailed analysis of all 472 separate occupations, shows that there were only a handful of majority-immigrant occupations. Thus, there really are no jobs that Americans won't do. Further, we estimated the share of occupations that are comprised of illegal immigrants, and found that there are no occupations in which the majority of workers are illegally in the country.

Among the findings:

Of the 472 civilian occupations, only six are majority immigrant (legal and illegal). These six occupations account for 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, native-born Americans still comprise 46 percent of workers even in these occupations.

Many jobs often thought to be overwhelmingly immigrant (legal and illegal) are in fact majority native-born:
Maids and housekeepers: 51 percent native-born
Taxi drivers and chauffeurs: 58 percent native-born
Butchers and meat processors: 63 percent native-born
Grounds maintenance workers: 64 percent native-born
Construction laborers: 66 percent native-born
Porters, bellhops, and concierges: 72 percent native-born
Janitors: 73 percent native-born
There are 67 occupations in which 25 percent or more of workers are immigrants (legal and illegal). In these high-immigrant occupations, there are still 16.5 million natives — accounting for one out of eight natives in the labor force.

High-immigrant occupations (25 percent or more immigrant) are primarily, but not exclusively, lower-wage jobs that require relatively little formal education.

In high-immigrant occupations, 59 percent of the natives have no education beyond high school, compared to 31 percent of the rest of the labor force.

Natives tend to have high unemployment in high-immigrant occupations, averaging 14 percent during the 2009-2011 period, compared to 8 percent in the rest of the labor market. There were a total of 2.6 million unemployed native-born Americans in high-immigrant occupations.

Some may think that native-born workers in high-immigrant occupations are mostly older, with few young natives willing to do such work. But 34 percent of natives in these occupations are age 30 or younger, compared to 27 percent of natives in the rest of labor force.

It is worth remembering that not all high-immigrant occupations are lower skilled. For example, 36 percent of software engineers are immigrants as are 27 percent of physicians.

A number of politically important groups tend to face very little job competition from immigrants (legal and illegal). For example, just 10 percent of reporters are immigrants, as are only 6 percent of lawyers and judges and 6 percent of farmers and ranchers.
Estimates of Illegal Immigrants

We find that there are no occupations in the United States in which a majority of workers are illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants work mostly in construction, cleaning, maintenance, food service, garment manufacturing, and agricultural occupations. However, the overwhelming majority of workers even in these areas are native-born or legal immigrants.

Although illegal immigrants comprise a large share of workers in agriculture, farm workers are only a tiny share of the total labor force. Consistent with other research, just 5 percent of all illegal immigrants work in agriculture.


Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ClintonKing:
I personally think that our country could use more immigrants; I don't see a problem with adding 50 million people tomorrow. I believe that more people generally means more ideas, more resources, and a better life for everyone.

Adding large numbers of immigrants quickly has always caused a crime wave. Think of the logistics of 50 million people arriving. Civic resources stretched to capacity. People die. Very bad idea.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
funny how conservatives sound just like liberals when they get mad about something that OSC said.

quote:
Originally posted by emarkp:
I'm stumped with how false and full of lies and bad logic this piece is. I don't know why OSC has such a blind spot on this topic, but everything I've seen that he's written on this topic has been just as awful.

A few points:

quote:
But the Republican loathing for Spanish-speaking immigrants has been so virulent that Hispanic voters have no choice but to vote for the Democrats, even though they actually dislike almost every position the Democrats take.

Oh, I know: Officially, the Republican position isn't anti-immigrant, it's only against illegal immigrants.

But hispanics aren't stupid. They remember the "English-only" movement; they hear Republicans talking about immigrants who only come to America to get on welfare. These views don't single out illegal immigrants. They attack all hispanic immigrants.

This is of course just flat out lies. The evidence is that all recent immigrants tend to favor big government policies with handouts. (Summary here or here, report here.)

Mocking the idea of differentiating between illegal aliens and legal immigrants is repugnant, and insinuating that really all R's are anti-hispanic is disgusing, false, and foul. It's no better reasoning than mocking Christians who say "hate the sin, love the sinner", saying "really they hate anyone who isn't perfect." It's low-brow pejorative.

"English-only" used to be called "assimilation" -- you know, actually joining a country in a melting pot, instead of creating a balkanized country of separate language and culture. Here in California, experience showed that bilingual education actually resulted in much slower assimilation and lower grades. Once we switched to rapid assimilation in schools, achievement improved and costs went down.


Surely OSC also thinks that Bill Cosby is really racist when he tells black youth to speak proper English instead of "black English", right? I'm sure he's consistent there?

quote:
It's hard to cast a vote for a party full of bigots who clearly hate you for your brown skin and your Spanish accent. They recognize that all the talk about "enforcement before reform" and "no amnesty" is really a thin disguise for "ship 'em all back home."
No it's not, but Card apparently feels he must continue with lies. We tried amnesty to fix the problem in 1986, and it resulted in a massive wave of immigration that's vast compared to the problem then. And on top of that, the share of R votes from hispanics in 1988 was less than it was in 1984, thus proving OSC false that it's a winning political strategy.

"Enforcement first" means just that. It means establishing actual control over our border (like every other country in the world), have an immigration policy, and actually enforce it. Crazy talk, I know. It means learning from history, and remembering that when Reagan signed the amnesty that promised the border would get fixed, we never got a secured border.

quote:
If our economy didn't need those workers, they wouldn't have been able to find jobs here, and if they hadn't known there were jobs here, they wouldn't have come and they wouldn't have stayed.
Yes, there have been jobs here, and the flood of immigration (primarily from Mexico) has driven down wages to the point where you have to live in squalor to subsist on the wages in question, so the only people who take the jobs are those who are used to squalor. Rather than raising Mexico's standard of living, you're driving down that of the United States. This is what happened when Germany reunified. The poor of East Germany mixed with the relatively wealthy West Germany, driving down wages and causing economic stagnation for decades.

See, if we could have a reasonable rate of immigration, we could find a rate which doesn't completely flood the labor market, fragment the culture, and lower the standard of living. But I guess that would be racist. Or something.

quote:
I mean making it possible for anyone who wants to live honestly and work hard to enter the country legally
So if 6 Billion people want to live in the US, you're okay with that? There should be no limit on how many people can immigrate? Nonsense. Last I checked, legal immigration was over 1 million per year. I think that's a pretty good number, but there's room for debate about the right number. OSC apparently believes that numbers are racist.

quote:
But don't call it "amnesty." These people haven't committed a crime, they've been providing for their families. In order to do that, they sacrificed everything they had and risked their lives to get here. And the whole time they've been here, they've had to live furtively, unable to call on the police to protect them, exploited by unprincipled employers and rapacious criminals.
Ah yes, the racist of the white man's burden. The soft side of racism. Pity the poor brown people being taken advantage of by evil whitey.

Let me list some crimes that a racist like OSC ignore: document fraud, tax fraud, and of course re-entering after a deportation order is a felony.

But a racist like Card think that hispanics are more like animals than people--they really don't know how to follow laws, so it's not their fault when they violate them. They're really more like pets than people. Disgusting.


Like Card, I served a mission in South America. The people I met there were fully capable of working for their families, making good and bad decisions, and following the law. I don't think they're pets. I don't judge people as a group like he does of Republicans, Republican leaders and talk-show hosts. I'm confident I can evaluate them individually. I'm not a racist like he is.


Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ljohnson
Member
Member # 1810

 - posted      Profile for ljohnson   Email ljohnson       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great comments, thanks to all.

The idea that illegals take jobs we privileged whites won't take is false. When I was young, all the landscaping was with native born, now it never is. The sheet rock jobs are all Spanish speaking. Much of the construction trades, mechanical, etc. are full of illegals taking jobs from people who were born here.

Legalizing a large group like this is very risky. I lived / preached in South America, and their ideas about government are deeply embedded and deeply mistaken. They will vote for more and more intrusive and controlling government, and that never ends well.

I feel like there is no stopping what OSC is preaching. Sooner or later, it will happen. It may well be the Right Thing To Do. But I see it as astonishingly risky, with very little upside.

I speak fair Spanish and worked with a lot of "illegals" trying to be helpful to them. Many of them did self-deport when the economy slowed down. They do have a lot of options, certainly the first generation folks can easily go back. Often they want to.

So I give the column a reluctant thumbs down. I think there are going to be society-destroying unintended consequences for what will happen, and I am deeply sorry to see it. I think out children will be far worse off when we abandon our barriers.

The LDS Church is quite warm and supportive towards immigrants, and at the same time they encourage people to lift where they are, to stay in their own countries and try to make those places better. Seems like a good policy for everyone, not just Mormons.

OSC, please consider, you may be wrong on this one!

Posts: 92 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They will vote for more and more intrusive and controlling government, and that never ends well.
You should realize that you are not speaking to an audience that already accepts your beliefs as a matter of faith. Some might argue that Somalia or the less affluent parts of Nigeria are representative of where government is neither intrusive nor controlling, and yet those areas are not ending up well. At the same time, modern governments with their intrusive policies have often made the quality of life for ordinary people better than it was before.

We all welcome your presentation of your own beliefs and ideas, but just be aware that you will need to substantiate your assertions if you wish to persuade anyone who does not start out with your same world-view.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, the Conservative Party of Canada has done extremely well in courting recent immigrants into voting for them, where new Canadians had traditionally been a bastion for the Liberal Party. The Conservatives are officially the party for less "intrusive and controlling government."

Non-white people can be persuaded as easily as white people if you treat them like citizens instead of foreign invaders.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Actually, the Conservative Party of Canada has done extremely well in courting recent immigrants into voting for them, where new Canadians had traditionally been a bastion for the Liberal Party. The Conservatives are officially the party for less "intrusive and controlling government."

Non-white people can be persuaded as easily as white people if you treat them like citizens instead of foreign invaders.

How much illegal immigration does Canada have and how often do they keep popping out large-swath amnesties?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not much and they haven't. But given that such amnesties occur and legal immigrants from similar backgrounds vote and considered how little margin there is in Federal elections, alienating (pun-intended) new Americans is not good politics. The Conservatives' success in immigrant-heavy ridings was key to them winning a majority government.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Not much and they haven't. But given that such amnesties occur and legal immigrants from similar backgrounds vote and considered how little margin there is in Federal elections, alienating (pun-intended) new Americans is not good politics. The Conservatives' success in immigrant-heavy ridings was key to them winning a majority government.

Why would the votes of illegal immigrants matter? They can't vote. As for legal immigrants, they have shown they don't want amnesty because they had to follow the law to get in so they think everyone else should too!

When they are polled, they often cite other issues as top concerns.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155327/hispanic-voters-put-issues-immigration.aspx

This fake idea that latinos in the US are going to vote for whoever gives amnesty to illegal immigrants is nothing but a myth.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As for legal immigrants, they have shown they don't want amnesty...
No, they haven't. They don't care about the issue as much as others, but they overwhelmingly want amnesty. Republicans like to kid themselves by thinking that they can pick up the Hispanic vote by being anti-abortion enough, but it's delusional.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't say they'd vote for whomever promised an amnesty. I said they'd vote for the party that treats them like citizens.

As you pointed out, Canada doesn't have many illegal immigrants, but the Liberals still had a lock on the immigrant vote. It was about responsiveness. Once the Tories started listening to those communities, the Liberals lost a lot of ground.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who gave them the last major set of amnesties? And how much did that party and those particular candidates get of the hispanic vote after they did? The numbers tell a different story than the ones that amnesty-pushers want us to believe.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I assume you're referring to Reagan's amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens in 1986. I don't think the GOP got too many votes out of that.

[ May 14, 2014, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The correct answer is that they LOST Hispanic votes from that. George H. W. actually got LEO'S of the Hispanic vote than Reagan did after they passed amnesty. This trend repeated after the next 2 mini-amnesties. The lesson for the GOP should be simple here:if they want to LOSE votes among Hispanic voters them pass an amnesty.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The correct answer is that they LOST Hispanic votes from that.
"[Explanations] should be as simple as possible, but not moreso." -- Einstein
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What other explanation is there for the decrease from 84 to 88?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps the Republican attempts to manipulate the vote? After all, the bill was sold to the GOP as a crackdown on illegal immigrants. The only way they could get it passed was if they allowed for the amnesty, but somehow the legal enforcement never quite took hold under either Reagan or Bush I. There appears to be a party affinity of Latinos and Hispanics in favor of Democrats, which is what really bothers Republicans.

Does that help explain why you think this 27 year old action by the darling of conservatives is somehow a referendum on Obama's legitimacy? For instance, Steve King said just last year, "Ronald Reagan’s signature on the 1986 amnesty act brought about Barack Obama’s election..."

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rampant Speculation (with neither data nor charity):

In order to sell the amnesty to its bigot wing, the GOP had to promote narratives about immigrants that hispanics voters didn't like.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So people against amnesty are bigots? Is that what you are saying?

Hey, I'm a minority. Can I rob a bank, ask for amnesty and then call anyone who opposes it a bigot? After all, I'd just be doing it to get my family a "better life" right? The answer to that is NO. If I did something dumb like that I'd suffer the legal consequences. Why is it that asking that illegal aliens suffer the legal consequences is being bigoted?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I'm implying bigots are against amnesty.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bigots also breathe oxygen. So what? What was the point of you making the "bigots" comment at all?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because that defines the kind of rhetoric the GOP needs to employ to get such people onside. The rhetoric to convince the libertarian and pro-business wings isn't like to annoy hispanic voters in particular.

I also like to remind people how odious a certain portion of the republican coalition is.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you trying to imply that a significant portion of the GOP are bigots?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't think I was implying it.

Though I guess it depends on how you define "significant".

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So how much of the GOP are "bigots?" Got a percent or raw number? What's your source? How does this number compare to the democrats?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did you miss the "with neither data nor charity" disclaimer?

But to answer your questions: Some. No. General impressions. No idea.

Do you think bigots are not a significant portion of the GOP?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no idea, but then, that doesn't consume me any more than wondering how many bigots make up the democrats. Is either really useful for this discussion?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It provides an explanation for the on-going antipathy that certain communities have for the GOP, including those under discussion in the this thread.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that "explanation" is bogus and doesn't fly especially without data to support it.

It sounds more like poisoning the well than a reasoned explanation.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do you think the explanation is bogus? That seems a stronger statement than just 'unsupported'.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1