How the GOP Didn't Get "Si Se Puede"

    By LisB on Sat, 11/10/2012 - 9:06pm |

    After watching the exit polls since Tuesday night, I have to say that I'm most overwhelmed by the so-called Hispanic vote. So-called because “Hispanics” are more than just “Hispanics”. They are Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Latino, etc. etc.

    Yet the GOP groups them into one little group and yet still thought, “Hey! They are mostly Catholic, aren't they?? So they should like our platform!!”

    Yeah, right.

    Run on a platform of anti-choice, anti-women, anti-reform, anti-immigration, and see how far that gets ya, GOP.

    Immigration reform is a huge deal, folks.

    I tried to question my more conservative family members about the “Hispanic” and/or “Minority” vote, and why it swung so strongly towards Obama, and they all said “It's their lack of amnesty, stupid.”

    Actually, they didn't say that. Only my mother answered me, and she sounded like Sean Hannity had whispered into her ear.

    They just don't get it.

    White men, older folks, are now the only GOP base left. Southern Strategy thanks to Richard Nixon. Worked well, I suppose, in it's day, but...you can only pick up so many votes from a dying base.

    Until the GOP realizes this and reaches out to the new, changing demographics of our lovely and beautiful melting pot that is now America, it will continue to lose votes...and a lot of respect.

    Comments

    Oh I see the comment I just made on Mr Day's blog

    http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/immigration-reform-hispanics-have-earned...

    fits here too!

    Especially good one here Liz:: Hey! They are mostly Catholic, aren't they?? So they should like our platform! wink

    Psst: I haven't checked the stats, but I have this sneaking suspicion that there were a significant number of Hindu-Americans that could be included in what's being labeled as this election's "Hispanic voting bloc." Just sayin' cheeky


    by artappraiser on Sat, 11/10/2012 - 9:41pm

    Awesome!  Thanks for reading and contributing, AA.

    Sad to see that "other" gets grouped into so many "other" camps where they don't really belong.  I guess anything "other" than white is "other". 

    Sad.

     


    by LisB on Sat, 11/10/2012 - 9:44pm

    Oh and do these guys qualify as Hispanic now, too? It would actually be a relief if they did, means they're not as scary anymore. cheeky

    Your post actually helped me clarify things: it's the immigrant citizens voting bloc, stupids! And stupids means sectors of both parties! You can't just use them as a punching bag and sweep reform under the rug; they're gonna vote.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 11/10/2012 - 9:51pm

    "These encouraging results clearly show that mainstream Americans reject anti-Muslim bigotry by candidates for public office and will demonstrate that rejection at the polls,"

    Yes, they are going to vote.  As they should.  And anyone who wants to think that the US is made up of less than what we are made up of now, is being incredibly stupid.  To put it nicely. 

     


    by LisB on Sat, 11/10/2012 - 10:13pm

    I think East Indians get placed in the Asian voting block, and I think Americans of Middle Eastern descent get placed there as well.  Beyond that, hi Lis, I totally agree. You can only pick up so many votes from a dying base.  And here, let's not forget Obama also took more than 60% of the 19 - under 30 vote, and they turned out in larger numbers than 2008.   Hope you're well.  


    by anna am on Sun, 11/11/2012 - 9:23am

    Thank you, Anna - yes I am, and hope you are too.  YES, I am very happy with the younger crowd!  I think it's wonderful that our younger generation is more open-minded and active at the polls.

     


    by LisB on Sun, 11/11/2012 - 10:24pm

    Oh please, Mexicans make up 65% of the US Hispanic population. Puerto Ricans with < 5 million are the only other Hispanic group with more than 2 million people

    Mexicans are 33 million, accounting for 3/4 the Hispanic increase from 2000 to 2010.

    Half of the US Cuban population lives in 1 county. Half of the Puerto Rican population is in New York and Florida.

    Also, one huge concern about the Mexican population is it has 2x the birthrate of any other Hispanic group, much less white, Asian, black. Median Mexican-American age is 25; median Cuban-American is the highest, at over 40. In Mexico, birthrate is down to 2 per woman, while in the US, Mexican-American birthrate is 2.4 per woman. (white rate is 1.8).

    How many Mexican-Americans or other high immigrant Hispanic group voted based on the Dream Act vs. any other issue? Do we have any idea? Romney certainly came across nastier towards Hispanics in general, so it's not surprising he had little support aside from conservative Batista Cubans.

    So in this rise in Mexican population that the left seems to be encouraging, are there any voting/policy/demographic trends that we might regret in 50 years as the Mexican-American population approaches 1/3 of the US total?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 11/11/2012 - 6:10am

    Sometimes I really hate these labels, and it really does seem like you've got a "Mexican" issue.

    That said, if we're going to use labels, let's be careful about how we're using them. Per that Pew research poll, those were self-identified "Mexican-Americans". Why does the hyphen matter? Well, for starters, many of those who self-identify as Mexican-Americans only have one parent who is Mexican-American. I don't know how many is "many", but I'd wager it's not insignificant. To high-light this, note that the same survey reports that only 1/3 of the interviewed "Hispanics" (evidently a term many of them don't like) were born outside of the US. So, just like many "Italian-Americans", many of these "Mexican-Americans" are quite assimilated.

    I'm not a champion of "Mexican-Americans" any more than I'm a champion of "Scottish-Americans", but I'm also not worry about percentages of them any more than I worry about percentages of "non-Hispanic whites".

    I do, however, share your concern about families with high birth-rates. That's an issue whether you claim your ancestry to be Mexican or not.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 11/11/2012 - 9:12am

    A hundred and fifty years ago they hated us Irish Catholics; they claimed we bred like rabbits. hahahah

     


    by Richard Day on Sun, 11/11/2012 - 10:15am

    Nice to ignore all context.

    The first huge wave of Iris was after the famine starting 1845 - some 1.5 million+ came over the subsequent 15 years - you might consider this temporary humanitarian policy, rather than pure economic (especially in light of inhumane British actions at the time).

    After 1860/1865, the US greatly increased immigration from numerous ethnic groups, including Irish, so it stuck out less.

    Compare this with our immigration "policy" that permitted almost 1 million Mexicans a year to immigrate in the late 1990's. Since our legal immigration policy is a combination of quotas and family visas and other conversions, we get stats like:

    In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. (Pew Hispanic Center)

    and

    Between 2000 and 2008, 11 states saw their Mexican-born population grow by at least 50,000.
    The Mexican-born population grew by 50,000 people or more between 2000 and 2008 in Texas (+517,000), California (+326,000), Arizona (+175,000), Illinois (+102,000), Georgia (+92,000), Nevada (+80,000), North Carolina (+79,000), New York (+74,000), Colorado (+69,000), Florida (+68,000), and Washington (+61,000).

    (Migration Information Org)


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 11/11/2012 - 1:06pm

    My "Mexican issue" is simply that someone decided to inundate the US with Mexicans versus a broadscale balanced immigration policy, and 20 years later, liberals can't accept that turning the US into Mexico Part II has some drawbacks, and instead rely on feel-good "they're quite assimilated" assessments.

    More like 40% of Mexican-Americans were born outside the US - 2/3 of Mexican immigrants had only been in the US since 1990 as of 5 years ago.

    I've yet to have anyone on a blog notice that *MEXICANS* have lower birthrates than *MEXICAN-AMERICANS*. In short, it's not an issue whether your ancestry is Mexican or not - it's peculiar to Mexican-American immigrants (legal or illegal).

    As for your assumptions, I took the time to find actual published statistics. There were 4 million Italian immigrants between 1880 and 1920, 5.5 million total from 1820 to 2004. Compare that with:

    The migration from Mexico that began after 1970 brought, by far, the largest numbers of immigrants from one country in American history, the report said, with about 30 percent of 39.6 million immigrants today having been born in Mexico. The 12 million Mexican-born people who live in the United States — about one in every 10 Mexicans in the world — comprise more than all the immigrants in any other country, the Pew report said. (NYTimes)

     That Mexican-American birthrate has become the highest factor for increased US population even after illegal immigration slowed (settling about 5-6 million total resident illegal Mexicans) should cause further discussion, but it won't. Instead it's all about easing the path to legal status, as well as mass deportations, 400,000 per year under Obama - no actual debate about how Mexican legal & illegal immigration should line up with our 2050 population.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 11/11/2012 - 12:43pm

    My "Mexican issue" is simply that someone decided to inundate the US with Mexicans versus a broadscale balanced immigration policy................

    Is your anger, frustration, angst with the 'someones' noted or is it directed towards the Mexicans? 

    What do you believe 'is the answer' to our immigration conundrum?


    by Aunt Sam on Sun, 11/11/2012 - 2:38pm

    Figure out quotas on the world's 150 countries, and stick with them. Update every 5 years to maintain a balanced immigration policy across the board. Debate what a reasonable % of Hispanics vs. all other ethnic groups on earth should be. Decide if we're going to have some economic balance (i.e. not all poor immigrants?), humanitarian exceptions or yearly targets, economic vs. political refugees, what's reasonable for the mass of family reunions that's placed under immigration, but is often a huge gaming of the system.

    Question - do you even think there's an immigration conundrum, or everything's hunky dory?

    Second question - do you think United States English as special and worth preserving, or if the U.S. becomes a hybrid or mostly Spanish speaking in 100 years, is that fine with you?

    (for me, US English is the gold standard now for universal acceptance as well as the world's lingua franca, including a hugely rich tradition of literature, drama and music lyrics - it would be truly bizarre and a shame if we let that treasure go. While some people assume Latino immigrants will assimilate, linguistically they're not forced to like other immigrant groups were, and the internet age & dual-language services makes it easier for them to forego learning English, as mentioned here and here. Seemingly gone are the days when immigrants like Joseph Conrad or Jerzy Kosinski would come to the country and adapt and add to the literature. 

    When people talk about diversity in Latin America, I note that a Garcia-Marques can move from Colombia to Mexico or Cuba and never miss a beat, or the Chilean Jodorowsky can film in Mexico and be part of the culture without thinking about it, just as some of the great Latino writers settled in Barcelona or Madrid to write, maintaining their Latin American readership. Telecanales out of Miami reach all of Latin America. There's simply less and less need for English as a survival language in the US, in more and more states, even as it gains importance worldwide)


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 2:47am

    EL TOPO! (o/t shoutout) On topic: Is not geography destiny? Latinos are special-we stole the southwest from THEM, not from the Irish (por ejamplo). Plus, they can walk here. It's a hell of a swim from everywhere else. RECONQUISTA!

    by jollyroger on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 3:28am

    Holy Blood! It's Holy Blood! (o/t)

    We stole Florida, Texas, the rest of the Southwest/West, Cuba and Puerto Rico from them, plus we tore off Panama from Colombia to build our canal.

    Though Guatemala stole Central America from Mexico, but the Mexicans stole the Yucatan back.

    Napoleon stole Louisiana from the Spanish and then sold it to us for a song.

    We stole the midwest across the Appalachians from the French who'd stolen it from the Indians, and then we stole our own colonies from the British. The British kicked many of the French out of Canada, sent them on death frigates to Louisiana.

    The Spanish stole Mexico and the rest of Spanish America from the Aztecs (including horrid military genocides in Argentina and Chile). The Aztecs imprisoned and repressed most of Central Mexican tribes once they left their garbage-island exile in the Lake Texcoco swamp.

    Simon Bolivar stole much of South America from the Spanish.

    Portugal lucked upon the large Brazil because the Spanish didn't have the Eastern extent right on their maps - oops! (The Spanish had intended to screw Portugal, but instead gave them say 1/3-1/4 the continent?). And then they stole Africans from Africa to work the land. (only 10% of American slavery was in the US - by far the most in Brazil, with another bunch around the Carribean).

    Life's a bitch, but the puppies are cute. Kinda.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 4:08am

    In the ghetto we have an aphorism that no one complains more bitterly when stolen from than a.thief. That said, I am willing to give primacy to the victim most recently in line.

    by jollyroger on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 5:11am

    Well in that case, it's the US that's the last victim of fence jumping and illegal settling, even though we've never quite squared exactly how much illegal work is economically beneficial and how much is a drain on local workers, though Cuba may be the last victim from our long embargo and political abuse. Some of these are complicated issues - a shame we seldom discuss in detail with different options, rather than grandstanding absurd positions. Who knows if deporting 400,000 Mexicans a year serves any good purpose policy-wise, but that's what we're doing, side-by-side with the DREAM Act. All things to all some people.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 7:24am

    Question - do you even think there's an immigration conundrum, or everything's hunky dory?

    A silly question, as if.....Yes, of course, but it's not A problem, the reality is there a multitude of problems due to our, as ever, lack of achieving any meaningful/productive proactive processes that deliver the tools to achieve remedies.

    Second question - do you think United States English as special and worth preserving, or if the U.S. becomes a hybrid or mostly Spanish speaking in 100 years, is that fine with you?

    This is just a toss off query that doesn't really address the main issues.  But, I do believe that English needs to be the language of our nation and duly preserved as such.

    Now, I put forth the following query to you, the answer didn't seem to be forthcoming so I ask for a short, simplistic response (again) from you:

    Is your anger, frustration, angst with the 'someones' noted or is it directed towards the Mexicans?

    I asked:   What do you believe 'is the answer' to our immigration conundrum?

    Your reply:   Figure out quotas on the world's 150 countries, and stick with them. Update every 5 years to maintain a balanced immigration policy across the board. Debate what a reasonable % of Hispanics vs. all other ethnic groups on earth should be. Decide if we're going to have some economic balance (i.e. not all poor immigrants?), humanitarian exceptions or yearly targets, economic vs. political refugees, what's reasonable for the mass of family reunions that's placed under immigration, but is often a huge gaming of the system.

    That's it?  Seriously?  This is all ya got?  If so, then how do we maintain the quotas?  What specific processes would we need to implement to achieve this goal?  What time frame is realistic to put this in place?  Decisions about socio-economic balance seem a bit pie in the sky at this juncture.  What do we do with those already here who are 'outside' the quota?  Shouldn't we prioritize and place dealing with the existing immigration quagmire here first?


    by Aunt Sam on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 11:33am

    What am I supposed to say, export legal immigrants from the stupid rules we set up over the last 20 years? How do we maintain quotas? We spit out a number, and that's all the immigration cards allowed, ain't that tough. Socio-economic balance? Just do like Canada does, if you have more than say $500K, you get to the head of the pack. Time frame? Yesterday or tomorrow, to quote the Beatles. Those here living outside the quota? Figure out if we need them to work or if there's a humanitarian/political repression issue, otherwise ship them back. Prioritize dealing with current quagmire? Just did.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 1:33pm

    Here are some facts, in 1880 the total population of America was 50.9 million people of those 50.9 million people 17.8% were foreign born so the total foreign born population in America was approximately 9.06 million individuals. Of those individuals 27.5 German born, 12.8% Irish born, 15.5% UK born, 12.7 Scandinavian born, 9.4% Canadian born, 6% Aus/Hung born, 5.1 Italian born, 3.5 Russian born.

    For example the American population in 1970 was 203,392,031, while the total foreign born population according to the US Census statistics were not much changed from 1880, they were 9.61 million people about 4.72% of the total population.  You compare that to the 17.8% of people in American being foreign born is a fairly large difference, and even in 2000 we don't meet those levels of foreign born people living in America. But of those immigrants in 1970, 1.81 million were from Latin America, and according to the Pew link 760,000 were Mexican immigrants, they comprised a total of 0.4% of the total US population and 7.9% of the total immigrant population. Of course things have changed since 1970, in 2000 approximately 31 million foreign born immigrants were here,16 million came from Latin America. So 50.5% or so came from Latin America, according to the Pew link 9.5 million of those came from Mexico which is more than half of the Latin American immigrants, and it is around 30% of the total foreign born population.  The total population in the US in the year 2000 was approximately 281 million people making the total foreign born people here around 11% of the total population and making the Mexican born part even if we estimate half of the Latin American population at around 3.3% of the total population.  But if we compare the 11% number to the height of immigrants which was 1890 where immigrants comprised 19.9% of the total population of the US. Those percentages are much larger than the percentages of today.

    There are reasons fewer Europeans immigrate here and why more people from Latin America immigrate here, many things changed in Europe.  It's impossible to do what you want the government to do because people come here for a variety of reasons but mostly they come here to make their lives and the lives of their families better. There is little reason to escape Europe now, there are many reasons to flee Mexico. If things were better in Mexico for her citizens you would expect a big drop in the people who immigrate legally or illegally.

    Which completely refutes this weird statement of yours:

    ... 20 years later, liberals can't accept that turning the US into Mexico Part II has some drawbacks, and instead rely on feel-good "they're quite assimilated" assessments.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 11/11/2012 - 3:09pm

    I'm still trying to get over the "Mexico Part II" statement.  Thanks for the facts, T.

    The US is "the melting pot" whether folks like it or not.  I think it's wonderful that we have so many different cultures here.  It, in fact, scares me to think that the US would turn its nose up and demand that everyone who becomes a citizen must discard their family's heritage. 

     

     


    by LisB on Sun, 11/11/2012 - 10:32pm

    Amazing - the US is a "melting pot" whether 1 culture is doing most of the immigration and hardly doing any "melting". Discard their family's heritage? Oh no, they just re-create it, including "Si se habla espanol aqui". No muss, no fuss. 

    It's "turning up our nose" to contemplate our own family's heritage - we have to just be ready to discard ours to make room for whoever's moving in.

    So while Mexico Part I will actually pay attention to its population growth, like many developing countries around the world, it would be impolite for us to consider, much less restrain, population growth in Mexico Part II.

    In California, 51% of children are Hispanic - mainly Mexican, of course. "The group predicted to post the most dramatic gain is the Hispanic population. It is projected to nearly triple, from 46.7 million to 132.8 million, from 2008 through 2050" according to Census 2000.

    26% of babies <1 nationwide are now Hispanic. 15% of youth 16-25 in places like Connecticut are now Hispanic - Hawaii is at 11%, 12% Kansas, 13% Rhode Island. Where is the model that shows a culture assimilating once it's the majority?


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 8:46am

    Why are you using 1970 as a base year when the boom in Hispanic & Mexican immigration started with Reagan's Immigration Reform & Control Act in 1986, and George HW Bush's 1990 Immigration Act? These had the effect of large amnesties, a 40% increase in annual immigration, with Mexicans being by far the largest group for this, plus a huge increase in family repatriation visas, again favoring Mexican immigration over all others. These also had the effect of turning transitory guest worker populations into permanent ones, and decreasing English requirements for citizenship.

    In about 2002, the foreign born population was 11.8%, with 52% of that from Latin America (30% of foreign born from Mexico), accounting for 44% of the US population growth. 

    By 2010, the foreign born population was up to 12.9%, despite an increase in deportations and decreases in Mexican illegal immigration. 53% of those were from Latin America, 55% of which being Mexican (i.e. 29% of foreign born population).

    Mexican immigrants were far more likely to have given birth in the previous 12 months, and had by far the highest avg family household (4.7). 

    Your summary also neglects the unique great industrialization going on 1870-1920, requiring more and more workers, and also that Germans & Scandinavians were easily able to adapt to Germanic-based English for assimilation*, and the Irish by that time were native English speakers, as were the 15.5% UK born & most of the 9.4% Canadian born.

    (*as the "House of Windsor" was originally the "House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" from the House of Wettin, changed due to WWI anti-German sentiment, this incestual German-English cultural & royal relationship has existed for a long time)


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 3:53am

    Obviously you didn't read my entire response or you would understand why the year 1970 is there. The 1970 number would not be considered a base number but a year in which the Latin American immigrant population appeared in the census.

    Even given that the immigrant population was up to 12.8% it hasn't reached the height of 19.8% of 1890 immigrant population.

    There are reasons why people immigrate to America, mostly it is for economic and personal liberty, those two go hand in hand. As I've already discussed, there are reasons that there are not as many Europeans immigrating here. Europe has changed since the 1880's and even since 1920. Our neighbors to the south continue to immigrate here to look for work, to be able to have the promise of economic mobility for their families, greater freedom, and education for their children. Until Latin American nations improve their economies and expand freedom for their citizens it is to be expected that they will continue to immigrate here.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 9:45am

    Trust me, I don't give a shit about "19.8%" out of context. In the middle of a global shift like 1880 in terms of immigrants moving around the world, in numbers much smaller than seep across the border every day today? Irrelevant. I don't give a shit if our neighbors continue to immigrate - if we need them, figure out a stamp to let them in. If we don't, ship them back. And balance this with Ethiopian, Russian, Kazakh, Indonesian, Kenyan, Brazilian, Irish, New Zealand/Maori, Burmese, Bhutanese immigration - we don't need more "Hispanics" meaning almost solely Mexican at the detriment of a balanced immigration program. Ya se habla bastante espanol - let's queue up Balinese dance and throat singing from Tuva, gracias.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 1:39pm

    You very much "give a shit". It's kind of disingenuous of you to make that claim when it is plainly obvious you to anyone reading this that you give so many shits you are willing to brush facts off, sort of like, well Republicans.

    That is all.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 11/13/2012 - 2:58am

    Ah, when in doubt, align someone with the GOP, guilt by innuendo/presumed association.

    The basic fact is that Hispanic, mainly Mexican, population went from 35 million to 50 million in the course of a single decade, and continues to rise from high birthrate as the source of ~50% of US population growth, predicted to be over 130 million by 2050.

    What that has to do with a more diverse high immigration period during the high growth industrial/high worker demand age of the 1880's when most areas of the US weren't settled, I've little idea. If it was predominately Irish immigrating at the time, you might have a parallel, except that the Irish spoke English and were used to living under the English yoke, so not much cultural shift. In 1860, white and black birthrates were still over 5 & 7 respectively, so there was no danger of the existing population being smothered, and the 3.5 birthrate by 1900 would have applied to new immigrant populations as well as old-timers.

    For Chicago at the time, "By 1890, having burst from the ashes of 1871 to achieve metropolitan rank, it was earning the ambivalent reputation that all great cities had at that time—awesome in its bulk and wealth, yet condemned for its fleshpots, diseases, and poverty." So presumably by your logic we shouldn't worry about disease and poverty, because we've been through it before, and presumably would survive again.

    As Mr. Obama notes, we don't have much use for bayonets and horses in the military anymore either.

    I did learn one interesting tidbit though which is that abortion rose dramatically starting around 1860, and was subsequently banned in 40 states, though it was commonly thought that abortion before "quickening" was acceptable.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 11/13/2012 - 6:10am

    Latest Comments