“Bush Hispanics” leaving the GOP
July 14, 2008
Jennifer Ludden of NPR has an interesting piece on the move of “Bush Hispanics” toward the Democratic Party. While the efforts of President Bush to push comprehensive immigration reform through Congress attracted many Hispanic voters (40 percent voted for Bush in 2004), the damage appears to have been done by the numerous “illegal immigration” ads from Republicans running for office in 2006. Despite John McCain’s rather favorable immigration view, it does not appear that he will fare well among Hispanics this November.
37 Comments
Comments are closed.
The anti-immigrant vitriol and xenophobia that made its way from the rank and file GOPers into the public square in 2006 will happily not go unremembered.
Even in Pittsburgh, in which there are very few ‘illegals’, the rhetoric at times verged virtually on an incitement to violence.
What do certain ‘God-fearing’ Republicans not understand about “made in the image of God?”
I can just anticipate the babble… “natural soveriegnty’; “right to control one’s borders”; “slow melting pot”.
My ex-fellow Republicans simply made me embarrassed to be an American for the first and many times (in my life) from 2002 onward.
They have no one to blame but themselves for the second political landslide that will occur aginst them in November.
No doubt the the tone of 2006 will have an effect. However I am still sopeful McCain willget a enough of that vote. Much will deend on the targeting in the last days of the election and also if such groups as Hispanic Evangelicals will stay with McCain. I am hopeful on that score.
By the way I followed this issue closely during the Republican Primary. Even in the most red conservative of states the hardline position failed to get barely get 50 percent of the Republican Primary vote.
It should be noted several prominent Democrats took the hard line on their relection campaign. Including the current head of the HOmeland Seurity HOuse Committe the horrid Bennie THompson of Mississippi. For some reason though this went unoticed
“The anti-immigrant vitriol and xenophobia that made its way from the rank and file GOPers into the public square in 2006 will happily not go unremembered.”
Mark it is also important to recall that many Republicans were not putting forth the vile.
Sadly though I am learning that when one sticks up for a hard postion like that people forget to support them the next election. As we just say in the sad Republican Primary defeat of Cannon in Utah that has been on the front lines of immigration reform and also fighting against the Tanton groups for years. Not even a election alert went out among immigration reform advocacy groups that he was in trouble.
ANother troublesome sign that the immigration reform lobby is lets soem of their Republicans die on the vine because of neglect. Let us pray that they are watching the Senaotr Graham race and the same will not happen there
Count my hubby who is one to leave the Party over it. He has been a Repub for a very long time and the deep racism that the immigration “debates” reveal has soured him maybe permanently on the whole Conservative movement.
“Count my hubby who is one to leave the Party over it. He has been a Repub for a very long time and the deep racism that the immigration “debates” reveal has soured him maybe permanently on the whole Conservative movement.”
The whole conservative movement? If people leave the Republican party and cede the battle ground to the hard core restrictionist that have a far more far reaching agenda than illegal aliens then the country is indeed in trouble.
THe Wal Street Journal and the Cato Inst are hardly liberal movements and they were backing immigration reform.
Getting Mccain elected in the primary season even ion the deepest of conservative states even though he was know n as “Mr Amnesty” is no small task.
I do not realize why people cede power and influence to talking heads like Michelle Malkin and the like on this issue. Especially when it is clear after 3 long years on this issue the hardcore have made no progress on this issue among Republican voters.
There was ethnic bashing but alos there were legit questions that I am sad to say that many on the immigration reform side failed to answer or to get their point accross in the public debate.
Question? As to the democrats. When we were tryng to get Immigration reform over to the House why did we see such a lack of zeal on this issue from House Democrat leadership.
If Obama gets in I would not be suprised at all if this a front burner issue and they will expend political capital on health care for instance. This was one reason why so many thought two years was the time to do it politically on both sides of the aisle
The Nitpicker Speaks:
Shouldn’t that be spelled ‘fare ‘ ?
JH,
I think the issue here is that Democrats generally care much more about getting elected than about real immigration reform. Thus, they’d rather find a way to paint Republicans as uniformly “racist” towards Hispanics, and try to get votes out of it, than give credit to those Republicans who have been reasonable advocates for reforming the immigration system.
It doesn’t help that on the wilder wide of the left there’s a total dis-respect for the law. I’m of Hispanic background, and as a matter of politics and economics I’d prefer something fairly close to open boarders (as we had in the 19th century), but I do have a serious problem with immigration advocates who encourage people to break the law. Yes, our immigration laws are crummy, but we stand no chance or improving them if no one respects them anyway.
Yet many on the liberal side take any emphasis on obeying the law to be racist and xenophobic.
For those who like to accuse Republicans of using “wedge issues” to divide the citizenry to the detriment of actually getting anything done, the immigration issue is actually a much better example of that tactic than any of “values voters” issues — on which conservatives are generally pretty welcoming of across-the-aisle agreement (rare though it is).
Darwin I do agree in large part. Immigration reform is a messy hard issue with valid points along the political spectrum
I suppose politics wise my frustrations are:
(1) That various intemperate remarks by Democrats are not even examined or they are given a free Pass. (note the question of immigration reform was not even exit polled as to Democrat voters in the Presidential Primary)
(2) This need to be a bi partisan issue
and
(3) After being lectured and told that it our duty to support Pro-life Democrats , which I often do, I am noticing that on the Catholic Justice issue of the deacde there is not the same attitude
(4) Both sides of the aisle are very much underestimating the power and long term agenda of the people behind the Tancredo/Lou Dobbs like approach. It is not just about illegal aliens
THe borders must be secured and we must do something sane with the people here. THat involves no doubt tough measures that no one will completely like.
IN the end the people that wanted immigration reform did a horrible job informing the voters and talking about their concerns and So I guess all of us failed in that that were supporting it.
Unjust laws should not be obeyed if they interfere with justice being done. This is what your Church teaches.
Unjust laws should not be obeyed if they interfere with justice being done. This is what your Church teaches.
It’s a tad more complicated than that.
The Summa is important, but is not official church teaching. I am referring to Evangelium Vitae.
The Summa is important, but is not official church teaching. I am referring to Evangelium Vitae.
Are you thinking of anything in particular? Cause I don’t recall much discussion in Evangelium Vitae on the issue of immigration.
EV discusses civil disobedience.
EV discusses civil disobedience.
With regard to abortion, yes. Not with regard to immigration.
I was once a GOP-believing, Limbaugh-loving, Republican (really I was)–then I grew up.
The truth is that for many of us, much like the Irish immigrants of the 19th century, if we (Hispanics) could sell our votes we would. Many people might say all kinds of things about what that means in particular. But its not too fancy or off base, I think. Like the general sentiment on the margins of society, especially coming from a Latin-American perspective (but, certainly not limited to that), political processes are understood as a rule to be corrupt to varying degrees, with lower degrees of it being the exception. Its a joke.
So, when one of the media-puppets gets elected and statistics show how the numbers break down in the manufactured consent of the “people”–the side taken by Hispanics will mean very little other than which group of joksters is percieved as more dangerous.
With all due respect, Blackadder, Thomas Aquinas’ points on civil disobedience neither exhaust the Church’s position nor have they been adopted in their entirety. In fact, the understanding of civil law in the 13th century is quite different than in our contemporary setting. One would do well to consult the Catechism and Compendium, which provide a general principle for disobedience rather than a mere concrete scenario such as abortion.
And thank you, Donna. I fixed it.
Policraticus,
Fair enough, but when I look at the Catechism and the Compendium, I don’t see anything about how it’s okay to break the immigration laws. If anything, it’s just the opposite. CCC 1241, for example, says that immigrants have a duty to obey the laws of their host country.
Michael,
The laws do did to reformed and right now we are trying to come up with a just solution to handle the people here.
However the problem is the laws were broken for too long of a time and have created distrust. That is why we hear”oh here you go again look what Reagan did and now we have the same problem” etc etc.
While I undrstand that one might have to the break the law for a “higher purpose” in inidvidual ceases when 14 million people do it aided by countless Millions of American citizens it creates this situation of mistrust and one reason why reform was so hard to pass
The breaking of previous laws both by illegal immigrants and US Citizens for good and for bad is now a huge impediment to fute progress on this issue because of distrust.
This is part of the problem. There are going to be things that eople on all sides are going to have a difficult time swallowing to come a compromise on this
Needless to say what ever is enacted the next time needs to work
blackaddervir
I think you are correct to point out that illegal aliens needed and still need to obey the immigration laws
The problem though is of Justice. THis country pretty much turned their eyes the other ways as we used these needed labor to fuel this economy. If he had not been for illegal aliens New Orleans and the Gulf Coast would have been in a heck of a fix after Katrina
That is the problem. At some point it is hard to talk about Justice when one party of these contracts from the House Wife that has hired the guy to mow ers yard, to the small businessman , to major corporations have used illegal aliens.
I mean I know several foks myself
Of course many of these illegal immigratn stayed or legal immigrnts stayed and dio not renew their visa , fell in love had children(that are now American Citizens), and did things norma; people do. Which has created one hell of a problem currently
So while I understand the breaking of immigration laws were wrong , it appears that this Justice is a little bit of a one way street that demands some radical action (Pathway to Citizenship for those that deserve it and qualify) to remedy this problem
Sorry, Blackadder but when families are being ripped asunder, when children are forcefully seprated from their parents- then yes, we have a duty to disobey these laws, as these laws violate the natural right of the family. And this is happening every day, in all parts of the country, with the most minimal coverage.
when families are being ripped asunder, when children are forcefully seprated from their parents- then yes, we have a duty to disobey these laws, as these laws violate the natural right of the family.
As a general principle, this can’t be right. For example, children are forcefully separated from their parents every time a parent is sentenced to prison for robbery, or some other crime. That hardly means that prisons violate the natural right of the family.
I would also note that 1) the situation you describe would apply only in a small fraction of all cases of illegal immigration, and 2) far more children are separated from their parents because the father (or mother) has gone across the border and left them behind than from the deportation situation you mention.
Blackaddervier.
The number of Children and huuseholds affected are not a small fraction. I need to go back and look at the Pew Study on this matter but the number is in the millions.
At some point we need to recall the social and economic cost of the break up of the black family that occured for various reason and wonder if we shall be duplicating that here.
Now that does not mean everyone is given a pass. Under the proposals million of folks even if they have children or not but have certain Felonies or do not meet qualifications would be deported.
While tragic for the children it will just have to be that way. So even in the case of Families it is not all black and white and the concern for families will not be a Carte Banche to allow everyone to stay
I imagine MM’s head would go into a permanent spin if asked to consider what should happen to someone who sells guns illegally but who also has a child. :)
With regard to abortion, yes. Not with regard to immigration.
EV is not only about abortion. Have you even read it? The passages about civil disobedience are not only in reference to abortion.
The Church has a long standing tradition of civil disobedience. It’s sad that many Catholics (such as you apparently) will invoke it only in cases where it fits your own political agenda.
I think you are right that immigrants (and everyone else) should generally follow laws. I am not arguing that Christians should be breaking laws left and right. But when laws are unjust they need not be followed. These are basic principles of Catholic morality. The Church has a duty to take care of human beings whether they are “legal” or “illegal” for example. Poli is right – The Catechism and Compendium are good sources for authentic, current Catholic thought on these matters.
Under normal criminal law, parents are separated from their children either to protect the children or to protect society. Either way, the common good is served. In this instance, the “crime” of the parent is simply trying to provide for his family, a duty under the natural law– for which he is punished by having his family ripped apart by the agents of the state. The common good is most certainly not served (unless we artificially restrict the common good to a subset of people, as happens when, say, the unborn are excluded from protection).
Interesting that those who decry “big government” interfering with the natural rights and duties of families don’t seem too bothered by this utterly egregious behavior.
Follow up: remember that “deportation” is listed among the acts that might be intrinsically evil in Veritatis Splendour.
MI,
There is a moral case for breaking the law when it is gravely unjust, however I think that you’re too quick to discount Blackadder’s point. If we grant free license to break the law whenever we want because we think it is the slightest bit unjust, we undercut the ability of law to function at all, which creates all sorts of problems. As with just war, it seems to me that one must look very seriously at proportionality before advocating breaking the law.
In the case of US immigration laws: We should allow more people into the country than we do, but I do not think that the injustice of our current immigration quotas and system is so great the it justifies millions of people crossing the border every year. People who have a just proportional reason for entering illegally (unjust persecution in their home countries, for instance) are very often granted permission to stay if they are caught. But if immigration advocates encourage (as they sometimes do) mass illegal immigration simply because there are better jobs in the US than in Central and South America, they make it harder for us to ever have stable and respected immigration laws.
I am very much against parents and children being separated as part of deportations, but at the same time, this is to an extent a problem that the parents have brought upon their children by ignoring the law. One would like to see the suffering avoided, but there is plenty of blame to go around, and much of it rests on the shoulders of the parents.
EV is not only about abortion. Have you even read it?
As a matter of fact, I have. I recognize that the document is about more than abortion. But if there are any references to immigration in EV, I must have missed them. Care to enlighten me, say, by producing the relevant quotations from the document?
The Church has a long standing tradition of civil disobedience.
Indeed it does. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, discusses the issue in the section of the Summa I cited earlier. As I recall, JPII cites Aquinas when discussing the issue of civil disobedience in EV, so I don’t see where you get off dismissing him as irrelevant.
Frankly, arguing that people who break America’s immigration laws by sneaking across the border or overstaying visas are engaging in civil disobedience is evincing a rather poor understanding of the concept. According to King and Gandhi, those who wished to engage in civil disobedience had to break the law publicly, giving their reasons as to why they felt it unjust, and they had to accept the punishments imposed by law without resistance. Needless to say, illegal immigrants don’t do that.
It’s sad that many Catholics (such as you apparently) will invoke it only in cases where it fits your own political agenda.
Given that my “political agenda” is I think we ought to have open immigration, I don’t think that’s it. Nice try, though.
I am not arguing that Christians should be breaking laws left and right. But when laws are unjust they need not be followed. These are basic principles of Catholic morality.
In some cases they need not be followed, in some cases they must not be followed, and in some cases they must be followed despite being unjust, because of the potential for scandal and disorder that would come from their being ignored. Those are the basic principles of Catholic morality as elucidated by the angelic doctor, and I’m inclined to take his word over yours on the point, unless you can back up your opinion with more than insults and your own say so.
The Catechism and Compendium are good sources for authentic, current Catholic thought on these matters.
I looked at the Compendium and saw nothing addressing the issue (if you want to point me to any passages I may have missed, feel free to do so). In the Catechism, I find the following: “Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” CCC 2241. Nothing about how it was okay to break immigration laws. Again, though, maybe I missed that part. If so, kindly produce the quotes.
If we grant free license to break the law whenever we want because we think it is the slightest bit unjust, we undercut the ability of law to function at all, which creates all sorts of problems.
When did I express such a casual view, i.e. “free license”?
Your language here is confusing as well… “If ‘we’ grant free license to break the law…” Who is the “we”?
I would venture to say that you are not in a position to say whether or not the laws are just or unjust. Those who are victims of the laws certainly are.
You say that breaking the law causes “all sorts of problems,” but you do not consider that the unjust laws themselves cause “all sorts of problems” for those on the receiving end.
I’m also not sure of your category “slightest bit unjust.” Is is similar to the category “teensy weensy bit unjust?” Or is it more like “kinda unjust”? My point? Laws are just or they are not just.
One would like to see the suffering avoided, but there is plenty of blame to go around, and much of it rests on the shoulders of the parents.
Easy for you to say, I think .
remember that “deportation” is listed among the acts that might be intrinsically evil in Veritatis Splendour.
If you really want to argue that deportation is intrinsically evil, we can have that argument. But I don’t think you really believe that.
But if there are any references to immigration in EV, I must have missed them.
I never said that there were.
As I recall, JPII cites Aquinas when discussing the issue of civil disobedience in EV, so I don’t see where you get off dismissing him as irrelevant.
I never said he was irrelevant. In fact, I explicitly said he was important.
According to King and Gandhi, those who wished to engage in civil disobedience had to break the law publicly, giving their reasons as to why they felt it unjust, and they had to accept the punishments imposed by law without resistance. Needless to say, illegal immigrants don’t do that.
King/Gandhi style disobedience is one kind of civil disobedience, meant to draw attention to unjust laws. Illegal immigrants absolutely do what they do publicly. They cross the border and live in the United States, going about their lives and doing what they need to do to survive. There is no way that they can NOT do that publicly, and no way that they can live here “illegally” without feeling it deeply in their bodies. You have no idea what that might be like. They break the law, though, as a matter of survival sometimes which is different than breaking the law to draw attention to an issue.
In some cases they need not be followed, in some cases they must not be followed, and in some cases they must be followed despite being unjust, because of the potential for scandal and disorder that would come from their being ignored.
But when it comes to a life a death situation, as in the case of many “illegal immigrants,” it is not YOUR place to make that call. And I’m inclined to take the opinion of the immigrant over yours, over St Thomas, and over the Pope himself because that person has more authority in such a case.
Oh, I believe deportation, correctly defined, is intrinsically evil; that’s from the magisterium. And I certainly believe that the sundering of families by the thuggish agents of a super-state is instrinsically evil.
“And I certainly believe that the sundering of families by the thuggish agents of a super-state is instrinsically evil.”
MM
I am not sure what agents you are referencing but if it is the Border Patrol they are not thuggish and in fact are putting their lives on the line.
I think this thread shows the complicated nature of this problem and how Compromise is really needed.
It is true people broke the laws but they were aided by a ton of American citizens. Perhaps many that we know
On the other hand we cannot just have open borders and to adcocate that gives ammunation to those that oppose Immigration reform.
THere is not a one one size fits all solution to this problem and no man made solution will be just.
THe genie has been out of the bottle for twenty years and one cannot put it back in.
I think breaking the law is a serious matter and not to be done lightly. I can imagine if certain Dracoian messages were taken (which will not happen as I can see it) that there were be many Catholics and other Christians that would do a sort of Underground railroad work to help illegal aliens and their families. I think that would and could be justifyed
However what needs to be done is lower the temperature on this issue. There are too many stories and images out there that gets us FEELING and not thinking.
Fair enough, but when I look at the Catechism and the Compendium, I don’t see anything about how it’s okay to break the immigration laws. If anything, it’s just the opposite. CCC 1241, for example, says that immigrants have a duty to obey the laws of their host country.
The entire paragraph is worth reading (I assume you are referring to 2241). The immigrant has a natural right to migrate in order to enter into a more stable, sustainable working and living condition, especially in prosperous nations. This right can be regulated, but not abolished, by the destinate state. It is the obligation of the state to respect the right to immigrate, and so if its immigrations laws are unjust, unfair, and burdensome AND that state is capable of supporting the immigrant, then the onus is on the state to adapt its laws rather than the immigrant to obey them. Paragraph 2235 in conjunction with 2241 makes this clear. National sovereignty does not trump natural rights or natural law.
Policraticus,
There is a distinction between saying that our immigration laws ought to be loosened (a claim with which I wholeheartedly agree), and saying that people should act as if they are already loosened (a claim I have some sympathy for, but also find problematic). Paragraph 2235 and the first half of 2241 address the first matter, but not the second.
…no man made solution will be just.
Why the hell not?
There are too many stories and images out there that gets us FEELING and not thinking.
“Feeling” is just as important as “thinking” in Roman Catholic ethics.
I am not sure what agents you are referencing but if it is the Border Patrol they are not thuggish and in fact are putting their lives on the line.
If they separate children from their parents in the name of border security, they are thugs.