Thread: The Republican Party and Immigration Policy

Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal

Gloria - I don't know that we really have to spend all of that money to slam shut the border unless we just want to because it makes us feel good.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/201...-Migration.pdf

The problem is that we don't really know how many people are still coming across. They just base the numbers on how many that are caught and say xxx number must have gotten through based on that fact that we caught xxx number of people. I have heard border agents say that they have been discouraged from catching people just so it will look like less people are coming over. I sure haven't seen the birth rates for illegal immigrants going down at Parkland. In fact they have become so overcrowded that they haven't been able to keep up.

Parkland emphasizes care over nationality, is top hospital in noncitizen births in Texas | Dallas-Fort Worth Communities - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News
Parkland Hospital, Major Healthcare Provider For Latinos, Risks Medicare Funding Due To Negligence

Birth rates shouldn't matter - people born here are legal citizens, just like me and you!

We're getting a little far afield from the original topic, so I meant to ask you before. If you don't believe that immigration is a harmful topic for the GOP, is it because you are discounting the immigrant vote as being too small to matter, or because you believe that immigrants aren't voting for the GOP for reasons other than their immigration stance?

For example, per the article I posted, 73% of Asians supported Democrats over Republicans in the last election, and 2/3's of the Asian population are naturalized citizens. That paints a pretty clear picture that the Republicans aren't attracting the Asian vote, and probably a lot of the Asian vote is from naturalized citizens. Do you think the reason that they aren't attracting this demographic is over their immigration policies, or for some other reason? If you think it's another reason, what is that reason?

Same with the Latino vote - 71% of Latinos voted Democrat (that number doesn't specify how many are native born citizens vs naturalized citizens) so that seems like the GOP isn't really reaching Latino voters, even though, as I have said before I think a lot of them might feel a sort of natural fit with the Republican party because IME they tend towards being religiously and socially conservative. Do you think that the problem for Latino voters is the GOP's immigration policies, or do you think it's something else? If so, what?

ETA: PS - I also meant to say that if you read the report, it isn't just reporting on deportation records. It also pulls records from the Mexican census which talks directly about who has left to go to the US, and who has returned, and who has never left to go to the US. According to those data points, the number of people who aren't going to the US is up, as is the number of people who have been to the US but returned and have no plans to go back. All this is an aside because I really want to talk about the GOP, but I couldn't resist responding to that part of your post.

I don't think parties should change their stances period. If need be create a NEW party.. it happened with the Republicans, there was a need and the party filled it and took people from the other parties to create it. It happened once it will happen again. Stick to party lines, don't waiver, and let the populous decide what they want. Don't cater to the populous.

Originally Posted by Rivergallery

I don't think parties should change their stances period. If need be create a NEW party.. it happened with the Republicans, there was a need and the party filled it and took people from the other parties to create it. It happened once it will happen again. Stick to party lines, don't waiver, and let the populous decide what they want. Don't cater to the populous.

While I can see where you are coming from, I do not necessarily agree. Opinions can and do chance. Slavery was once very much accepted and a political issue. Woman did not used to be able to vote. There are some major issues that public opinion changes majorly on over time. If someday the Democratic party changes its stance on Abortion they would still be Democrat. Immigration is not one of my big issues that I am loosing sleep over, but I do think a Parties platform can change over time.

Originally Posted by Rivergallery

I don't think parties should change their stances period. If need be create a NEW party.. it happened with the Republicans, there was a need and the party filled it and took people from the other parties to create it. It happened once it will happen again. Stick to party lines, don't waiver, and let the populous decide what they want. Don't cater to the populous.

Really? The populace IS the party. This view boggles my mind. For instance, I know Lillie loved Ron Paul. The unfortunate reality of our party system is such that if she actually voted for the person she loved, she actually voted for Obama, in that she took a vote away from Romney. This sounds all nifty "oh just start a NEW party"........but have you seen the BILLIONS of bucks it takes to actually run a legitimate campaign as a "new party"? Please explain how exactly you envision this working in the real world.

Originally Posted by GloriaInTX

Wierd. I live in Texas and none of the Mexicans I know are rich. About half of my extended family are married to Mexicans and none of them are rich either.

I'm just posting facts. If you don't know them that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers

While I can see where you are coming from, I do not necessarily agree. Opinions can and do chance. Slavery was once very much accepted and a political issue. Woman did not used to be able to vote. There are some major issues that public opinion changes majorly on over time. If someday the Democratic party changes its stance on Abortion they would still be Democrat. Immigration is not one of my big issues that I am loosing sleep over, but I do think a Parties platform can change over time.

Slavery issue led to the creation of the Republican Party. That is the biggest issue I can think of where that happened. It was the Anti-slavery Party, they took people from the Whigs and the Democrats.

Originally Posted by Potter75

Really? The populace IS the party. This view boggles my mind. For instance, I know Lillie loved Ron Paul. The unfortunate reality of our party system is such that if she actually voted for the person she loved, she actually voted for Obama, in that she took a vote away from Romney. This sounds all nifty "oh just start a NEW party"........but have you seen the BILLIONS of bucks it takes to actually run a legitimate campaign as a "new party"? Please explain how exactly you envision this working in the real world.

Yes I do understand what it "takes" but I do not think a party should change their party line because a small percentage of their constituants view things differently. Stick to the party line, let the voting change it... WE are getting there we are getting more and more support in lower offices for 3rd party candidates. Just because something is "HARD" doesn't mean it isn't right.. regardless of the new party position. If that was so we would all still have slavery.

Originally Posted by Rivergallery

because a small percentage of their constituants view things differently.

A small percentage no, but if the majority opinion changes, the party should reflect the values of the majority of their constituents.

Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers

A small percentage no, but if the majority opinion changes, the party should reflect the values of the majority of their constituents.

Majority of constituants, not the majority of population, sure. I am not sure there is a case in American history that the majority of a party has broken party lines though on a specific issue. We do have shiftings with more liberal or more conservative views with the individuals we elect, heck I am not saying Republicans in power aren't breaking their own party line right now by overspending in social programs specifically and have been. But, I see that as a separate issue.... maybe it isn't? Historically even when major parties such as the Republicans were formed, the majority of the Whigs nor the majority of the Democrats at the time wanted to stop the Kansas Nebraska Act. The Republicans took minorities from the other parties and some of their own and became a majority. Does this make sense?