Will the GOP ever appeal to Minorities?

[pbrower2a]

Then why do more "hate crimes" occur outside the south?

If the hate crimes are racist or show religious bigotry, the perpetrators usually have involvement with hate groups (and that includes Satanic cults when they attack Christian churches). Anti-gay violence can occur anywhere.   

[pogo stick]

I think it's possibly that the GOP can appeal to minorities (None-Mexican Hispanics)

But we gotta stop acting so dang stupid. I mean  no one can be 100% Conservative or 100% Liberal. We gotta stop calling people RINOs ,stop hunting them down and stop  trying to purify the party.

[minionofmidas]

And then to if you subscribe to the idea of a hate crime. Which I of course don't as a crime is a crime. And of course it's irrelevant and inaccurate, it was created by the government.

Which is a widespread view. Which is exactly why that map doesn't show what it purports to.

(Also, are all states' standards of what a hate crime is the same?)

[??????????]

And then to if you subscribe to the idea of a hate crime. Which I of course don't as a crime is a crime. And of course it's irrelevant and inaccurate, it was created by the government.

Which is a widespread view. Which is exactly why that map doesn't show what it purports to.

(Also, are all states' standards of what a hate crime is the same?)

Argue it with the DOJ.

[Mechaman]

If they wish to survive...yes!

[PlatinumSkye]

Bush & McCain both supported a more amnesty leaning plan just to get Hispanic support. Personally the GOP can get some hispanic votes, it was just almost impossible in 2008. Possibly some in Nevada & Colorado. Arizona & New Mexico I doubt it.

[pogo stick]

OK ,Guys I gots a plans. Kick out the Mexicans and smuggle in Cubans. Cubans vote republicanz!!!

[minionofmidas]

And then to if you subscribe to the idea of a hate crime. Which I of course don't as a crime is a crime. And of course it's irrelevant and inaccurate, it was created by the government.

Which is a widespread view. Which is exactly why that map doesn't show what it purports to.

(Also, are all states' standards of what a hate crime is the same?)

Argue it with the DOJ.

They just collate the figures reported elsewhere.

[Frodo]

Speaking of minorities, how much impact would there be if the Jewish population in the United States switched party affiliations from Democrat to Republican, based on President Obama's position regarding Jewish settlement growth on Palestinian territory? 

[Vepres]

Speaking of minorities, how much impact would there be if the Jewish population in the United States switched party affiliations from Democrat to Republican, based on President Obama's position regarding Jewish settlement growth on Palestinian territory? 

I highly doubt the Jewish would switch parties just because of that issue. They may shift towards Republicans, but they will still be majority Democrat.

Bush & McCain both supported a more amnesty leaning plan just to get Hispanic support. Personally the GOP can get some hispanic votes, it was just almost impossible in 2008. Possibly some in Nevada & Colorado. Arizona & New Mexico I doubt it.

As President Reagan once said, Latinos are Republicans, they just don't know it yet. Not only are they religious, but, in my experience in a 20% Latino state, they tend to be entrepreneurial and self-reliant. They only become more Republican in the second and third generation Latinos, when they become middle-class and pay more taxes. By the time they reach the fourth generation, they're almost indistinguishable from whites in terms of standard of living and voting patterns.

A friend of mine put it this way. The first generation works in landscaping. The second owns a landscaping business, which allows them to send their third generation children to college.

If Republicans were more empathetic to their situations, supported a guest worker program and the like, without supporting amnesty, they could seize the majority of the Latino vote.

[Sbane]

Speaking of minorities, how much impact would there be if the Jewish population in the United States switched party affiliations from Democrat to Republican, based on President Obama's position regarding Jewish settlement growth on Palestinian territory? 

I highly doubt the Jewish would switch parties just because of that issue. They may shift towards Republicans, but they will still be majority Democrat.

Bush & McCain both supported a more amnesty leaning plan just to get Hispanic support. Personally the GOP can get some hispanic votes, it was just almost impossible in 2008. Possibly some in Nevada & Colorado. Arizona & New Mexico I doubt it.

As President Reagan once said, Latinos are Republicans, they just don't know it yet. Not only are they religious, but, in my experience in a 20% Latino state, they tend to be entrepreneurial and self-reliant. They only become more Republican in the second and third generation Latinos, when they become middle-class and pay more taxes. By the time they reach the fourth generation, they're almost indistinguishable from whites in terms of standard of living and voting patterns.

A friend of mine put it this way. The first generation works in landscaping. The second owns a landscaping business, which allows them to send their third generation children to college.

If Republicans were more empathetic to their situations, supported a guest worker program and the like, without supporting amnesty, they could seize the majority of the Latino vote.

Kicking out people who are already here is unacceptable to Latinos. It reeks of racism frankly. As long as republicans support that they can forget about the Latino vote. Now increasing border enforcement and other common sense measures such as that aren't opposed by Latinos.

[War on Want]

Speaking of minorities, how much impact would there be if the Jewish population in the United States switched party affiliations from Democrat to Republican, based on President Obama's position regarding Jewish settlement growth on Palestinian territory? 

I highly doubt the Jewish would switch parties just because of that issue. They may shift towards Republicans, but they will still be majority Democrat.

Bush & McCain both supported a more amnesty leaning plan just to get Hispanic support. Personally the GOP can get some hispanic votes, it was just almost impossible in 2008. Possibly some in Nevada & Colorado. Arizona & New Mexico I doubt it.

As President Reagan once said, Latinos are Republicans, they just don't know it yet. Not only are they religious, but, in my experience in a 20% Latino state, they tend to be entrepreneurial and self-reliant. They only become more Republican in the second and third generation Latinos, when they become middle-class and pay more taxes. By the time they reach the fourth generation, they're almost indistinguishable from whites in terms of standard of living and voting patterns.

A friend of mine put it this way. The first generation works in landscaping. The second owns a landscaping business, which allows them to send their third generation children to college.

If Republicans were more empathetic to their situations, supported a guest worker program and the like, without supporting amnesty, they could seize the majority of the Latino vote.

I have to disagree here. From my experience in having a Mexican family, Latinos might be self-reliant and very capitalistic, at the same time they don't see much of a social stigma in accepting government help and they are very communal. I have the feeling that Latinos will always be at least 60-40 or 55-45 Democratic voting, but will still be considered the ultimate swing vote.

[Vepres]

Speaking of minorities, how much impact would there be if the Jewish population in the United States switched party affiliations from Democrat to Republican, based on President Obama's position regarding Jewish settlement growth on Palestinian territory? 

I highly doubt the Jewish would switch parties just because of that issue. They may shift towards Republicans, but they will still be majority Democrat.

Bush & McCain both supported a more amnesty leaning plan just to get Hispanic support. Personally the GOP can get some hispanic votes, it was just almost impossible in 2008. Possibly some in Nevada & Colorado. Arizona & New Mexico I doubt it.

As President Reagan once said, Latinos are Republicans, they just don't know it yet. Not only are they religious, but, in my experience in a 20% Latino state, they tend to be entrepreneurial and self-reliant. They only become more Republican in the second and third generation Latinos, when they become middle-class and pay more taxes. By the time they reach the fourth generation, they're almost indistinguishable from whites in terms of standard of living and voting patterns.

A friend of mine put it this way. The first generation works in landscaping. The second owns a landscaping business, which allows them to send their third generation children to college.

If Republicans were more empathetic to their situations, supported a guest worker program and the like, without supporting amnesty, they could seize the majority of the Latino vote.

Kicking out people who are already here is unacceptable to Latinos. It reeks of racism frankly. As long as republicans support that they can forget about the Latino vote. Now increasing border enforcement and other common sense measures such as that aren't opposed by Latinos.

Frankly, if French-Canadians were sneaking across the northern border and illegally taking jobs from Americans, I would want to deport them as well. Amnesty is not fair to Latinos who played by the rules to enter the country.

What is racist about kicking foreigners out of the country who broke the law. Now, Latinos who qualify for a guest-worker program of some sort should be allowed to stay (I know many Republican pols don't share this view, but some do). However, the ones who went in and essentially by passed the immigration process broke the law, and giving them amnesty is a slap in the face to those who came here legally.

Speaking of minorities, how much impact would there be if the Jewish population in the United States switched party affiliations from Democrat to Republican, based on President Obama's position regarding Jewish settlement growth on Palestinian territory? 

I highly doubt the Jewish would switch parties just because of that issue. They may shift towards Republicans, but they will still be majority Democrat.

Bush & McCain both supported a more amnesty leaning plan just to get Hispanic support. Personally the GOP can get some hispanic votes, it was just almost impossible in 2008. Possibly some in Nevada & Colorado. Arizona & New Mexico I doubt it.

As President Reagan once said, Latinos are Republicans, they just don't know it yet. Not only are they religious, but, in my experience in a 20% Latino state, they tend to be entrepreneurial and self-reliant. They only become more Republican in the second and third generation Latinos, when they become middle-class and pay more taxes. By the time they reach the fourth generation, they're almost indistinguishable from whites in terms of standard of living and voting patterns.

A friend of mine put it this way. The first generation works in landscaping. The second owns a landscaping business, which allows them to send their third generation children to college.

If Republicans were more empathetic to their situations, supported a guest worker program and the like, without supporting amnesty, they could seize the majority of the Latino vote.

I have to disagree here. From my experience in having a Mexican family, Latinos might be self-reliant and very capitalistic, at the same time they don't see much of a social stigma in accepting government help and they are very communal. I have the feeling that Latinos will always be at least 60-40 or 55-45 Democratic voting, but will still be considered the ultimate swing vote.

Perhaps it's where I live, but Latinos in my area, even second generation ones, are almost indistinguishable from whites in terms of voting behavior and political views. Maybe this is different near the border? After all, I think most Latinos in my part of the state have been here for generations, or are legal immigrants.

[Sbane]

Speaking of minorities, how much impact would there be if the Jewish population in the United States switched party affiliations from Democrat to Republican, based on President Obama's position regarding Jewish settlement growth on Palestinian territory? 

I highly doubt the Jewish would switch parties just because of that issue. They may shift towards Republicans, but they will still be majority Democrat.

Bush & McCain both supported a more amnesty leaning plan just to get Hispanic support. Personally the GOP can get some hispanic votes, it was just almost impossible in 2008. Possibly some in Nevada & Colorado. Arizona & New Mexico I doubt it.

As President Reagan once said, Latinos are Republicans, they just don't know it yet. Not only are they religious, but, in my experience in a 20% Latino state, they tend to be entrepreneurial and self-reliant. They only become more Republican in the second and third generation Latinos, when they become middle-class and pay more taxes. By the time they reach the fourth generation, they're almost indistinguishable from whites in terms of standard of living and voting patterns.

A friend of mine put it this way. The first generation works in landscaping. The second owns a landscaping business, which allows them to send their third generation children to college.

If Republicans were more empathetic to their situations, supported a guest worker program and the like, without supporting amnesty, they could seize the majority of the Latino vote.

Kicking out people who are already here is unacceptable to Latinos. It reeks of racism frankly. As long as republicans support that they can forget about the Latino vote. Now increasing border enforcement and other common sense measures such as that aren't opposed by Latinos.

Frankly, if French-Canadians were sneaking across the northern border and illegally taking jobs from Americans, I would want to deport them as well. Amnesty is not fair to Latinos who played by the rules to enter the country.

What is racist about kicking foreigners out of the country who broke the law. Now, Latinos who qualify for a guest-worker program of some sort should be allowed to stay (I know many Republican pols don't share this view, but some do). However, the ones who went in and essentially by passed the immigration process broke the law, and giving them amnesty is a slap in the face to those who came here legally.

I know they broke the law but did they have any another choice? Do you see the local Mcdonalds or farmer sponsoring immigrants? Sure a lot of Mexicans immigrate here legally after being sponsored by family members or employers. But what if you are poor and don't have family in the United states or don't have a lot of skills? For them the only route is illegal immigration. It's not as if anyone who wants to get in the US is allowed to. You say that they by passed the immigration process, but in reality there was no immigration process for them.

Most Latinos (actually immigrants from anywhere) realize this and thus have empathy for these illegals while most Americans don't. Most of them are hard working people who had no other choice. I absolutely believe it is important that we make sure we verify who these people are and I also don't think they should be made citizens overnight. But we should at least give them the opportunity to become residents. They should follow the same route that legal immigrants do and get a green card and then citizenship (usually about a 10 year process). So they wouldn't be "cutting in line". If we follow this up by allowing low skill labor a legal avenue of coming to America and more border enforcement, we might reduce the problem somewhat.

[phk]

Speaking of minorities, how much impact would there be if the Jewish population in the United States switched party affiliations from Democrat to Republican, based on President Obama's position regarding Jewish settlement growth on Palestinian territory? 

Jews have been trending R since 1992 or so.  GOP has gone from 10% to 25%, slowly but steadily. I wouldn't be surprised if Muslims were the reason either.

[phk]

Speaking of minorities, how much impact would there be if the Jewish population in the United States switched party affiliations from Democrat to Republican, based on President Obama's position regarding Jewish settlement growth on Palestinian territory? 

I highly doubt the Jewish would switch parties just because of that issue. They may shift towards Republicans, but they will still be majority Democrat.

Bush & McCain both supported a more amnesty leaning plan just to get Hispanic support. Personally the GOP can get some hispanic votes, it was just almost impossible in 2008. Possibly some in Nevada & Colorado. Arizona & New Mexico I doubt it.

As President Reagan once said, Latinos are Republicans, they just don't know it yet. Not only are they religious, but, in my experience in a 20% Latino state, they tend to be entrepreneurial and self-reliant. They only become more Republican in the second and third generation Latinos, when they become middle-class and pay more taxes. By the time they reach the fourth generation, they're almost indistinguishable from whites in terms of standard of living and voting patterns.

A friend of mine put it this way. The first generation works in landscaping. The second owns a landscaping business, which allows them to send their third generation children to college.

If Republicans were more empathetic to their situations, supported a guest worker program and the like, without supporting amnesty, they could seize the majority of the Latino vote.

Kicking out people who are already here is unacceptable to Latinos. It reeks of racism frankly. As long as republicans support that they can forget about the Latino vote. Now increasing border enforcement and other common sense measures such as that aren't opposed by Latinos.

Frankly, if French-Canadians were sneaking across the northern border and illegally taking jobs from Americans, I would want to deport them as well. Amnesty is not fair to Latinos who played by the rules to enter the country.

What is racist about kicking foreigners out of the country who broke the law. Now, Latinos who qualify for a guest-worker program of some sort should be allowed to stay (I know many Republican pols don't share this view, but some do). However, the ones who went in and essentially by passed the immigration process broke the law, and giving them amnesty is a slap in the face to those who came here legally.

I know they broke the law but did they have any another choice? Do you see the local Mcdonalds or farmer sponsoring immigrants? Sure a lot of Mexicans immigrate here legally after being sponsored by family members or employers. But what if you are poor and don't have family in the United states or don't have a lot of skills? For them the only route is illegal immigration. It's not as if anyone who wants to get in the US is allowed to. You say that they by passed the immigration process, but in reality there was no immigration process for them.

Most Latinos (actually immigrants from anywhere) realize this and thus have empathy for these illegals while most Americans don't. Most of them are hard working people who had no other choice. I absolutely believe it is important that we make sure we verify who these people are and I also don't think they should be made citizens overnight. But we should at least give them the opportunity to become residents. They should follow the same route that legal immigrants do and get a green card and then citizenship (usually about a 10 year process). So they wouldn't be "cutting in line". If we follow this up by allowing low skill labor a legal avenue of coming to America and more border enforcement, we might reduce the problem somewhat.

Tbh, we should be incentivizing the automation of low-skilled labor rather than encouraging or even subsidizing it .

[Sbane]

I am not talking about encouraging or subsidizing it. I am just recognizing the reasons for illegal immigration and why these people had to break the law. I just want to give them a path to citizenship and at the same time try and reduce future illegal immigration.

[Vepres]

I am not talking about encouraging or subsidizing it. I am just recognizing the reasons for illegal immigration and why these people had to break the law. I just want to give them a path to citizenship and at the same time try and reduce future illegal immigration.

By your logic, somebody is justified in murdering their girlfriend because she verbally abused him. I can empathize with the murderer, but he still broke the law and killed somebody.

What's wrong with waiting a year or two to enter the US?

By the way, you contradicted yourself. You want to reduce illegal immigration, yet won't amnesty only give Central Americans more incentive to cross the border illegally?

I can sympathize with those who would've qualified for a guest-worker program, as we should have had one years ago. But again, it's a slap in the face for those who waited their turn.

I can empathize with all of them in fact. But, that doesn't change the fact that they broke the law. They committed a crime, and most likely stole a job from an American because they'll do it for a few dollars less. Do we really want that? Especially in the bad economy.

[Governor PiT]

Speaking of minorities, how much impact would there be if the Jewish population in the United States switched party affiliations from Democrat to Republican, based on President Obama's position regarding Jewish settlement growth on Palestinian territory? 

Jews have been trending R since 1992 or so.  GOP has gone from 10% to 25%, slowly but steadily. I wouldn't be surprised if Muslims were the reason either.

Arabs(not sure about Muslims) used to lean Republican until 9/11, and Bush's policies against the Arab World such as the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Ron Paul could of got at 60% of the Arab vote and win Michigan if he was the nominee. He was endorsed by a major Muslims newspaper.

[pbrower2a]

I am not talking about encouraging or subsidizing it. I am just recognizing the reasons for illegal immigration and why these people had to break the law. I just want to give them a path to citizenship and at the same time try and reduce future illegal immigration.

By your logic, somebody is justified in murdering their girlfriend because she verbally abused him. I can empathize with the murderer, but he still broke the law and killed somebody.

What's wrong with waiting a year or two to enter the US?

By the way, you contradicted yourself. You want to reduce illegal immigration, yet won't amnesty only give Central Americans more incentive to cross the border illegally?

I can sympathize with those who would've qualified for a guest-worker program, as we should have had one years ago. But again, it's a slap in the face for those who waited their turn.

I can empathize with all of them in fact. But, that doesn't change the fact that they broke the law. They committed a crime, and most likely stole a job from an American because they'll do it for a few dollars less. Do we really want that? Especially in the bad economy.

Crossing a border to get better prospects for one's children is less obvious a crime than is murdering a lover for a verbal insult.  One might get some sympathy; the other might get one the electric chair.

[War on Want]

I am not talking about encouraging or subsidizing it. I am just recognizing the reasons for illegal immigration and why these people had to break the law. I just want to give them a path to citizenship and at the same time try and reduce future illegal immigration.

By your logic, somebody is justified in murdering their girlfriend because she verbally abused him. I can empathize with the murderer, but he still broke the law and killed somebody.

What's wrong with waiting a year or two to enter the US?

By the way, you contradicted yourself. You want to reduce illegal immigration, yet won't amnesty only give Central Americans more incentive to cross the border illegally?

I can sympathize with those who would've qualified for a guest-worker program, as we should have had one years ago. But again, it's a slap in the face for those who waited their turn.

I can empathize with all of them in fact. But, that doesn't change the fact that they broke the law. They committed a crime, and most likely stole a job from an American because they'll do it for a few dollars less. Do we really want that? Especially in the bad economy.

That is a terrible comparison...

[Vepres]

I am not talking about encouraging or subsidizing it. I am just recognizing the reasons for illegal immigration and why these people had to break the law. I just want to give them a path to citizenship and at the same time try and reduce future illegal immigration.

By your logic, somebody is justified in murdering their girlfriend because she verbally abused him. I can empathize with the murderer, but he still broke the law and killed somebody.

What's wrong with waiting a year or two to enter the US?

By the way, you contradicted yourself. You want to reduce illegal immigration, yet won't amnesty only give Central Americans more incentive to cross the border illegally?

I can sympathize with those who would've qualified for a guest-worker program, as we should have had one years ago. But again, it's a slap in the face for those who waited their turn.

I can empathize with all of them in fact. But, that doesn't change the fact that they broke the law. They committed a crime, and most likely stole a job from an American because they'll do it for a few dollars less. Do we really want that? Especially in the bad economy.

That is a terrible comparison...

Yeah... pretty extreme. My point is, I can empathize with illegal immigrants, just as I can empathize with (some) illegal drug users. However, that doesn't change the fact that they knowingly broke the law.

[Frodo]

What gripes me is that beyond the wackos like Tom Tancredo there is not much of an anti-Immigrant wing the GOP. There is an anti-illegal immigrant wing that includes most of the party but many like Mitt Romney have made clear that they are pro-Immigration and genuinely want to continue legal Immigration but want to end illegal Immigration. If the distinction is made clear I highly doubt anyone would win running as Pro-illegal Immigrant. The trouble is Immigrant groups are inherently mistrustful and b/c of left wing missinformation beleive the GOP to be inherently anti-Immigrant. That is our fault for not articulating our positions better then it is the media's fault for acting like an arm of the DNC.

The one major problem here is that many (if not most) immigrant households include some family members who jumped the fence into the United States.  Which is why as long as the GOP continues to rail against illegal immigration, immigrants generally (legal as well as illegal) will continue to identify with each other -you attack one, you attack all. 

[Vepres]

What gripes me is that beyond the wackos like Tom Tancredo there is not much of an anti-Immigrant wing the GOP. There is an anti-illegal immigrant wing that includes most of the party but many like Mitt Romney have made clear that they are pro-Immigration and genuinely want to continue legal Immigration but want to end illegal Immigration. If the distinction is made clear I highly doubt anyone would win running as Pro-illegal Immigrant. The trouble is Immigrant groups are inherently mistrustful and b/c of left wing missinformation beleive the GOP to be inherently anti-Immigrant. That is our fault for not articulating our positions better then it is the media's fault for acting like an arm of the DNC.

The one major problem here is that many (if not most) immigrant households include some family members who jumped the fence into the United States.  Which is why as long as the GOP continues to rail against illegal immigration, immigrants generally (legal as well as illegal) will continue to identify with each other -you attack one, you attack all. 

I would like to think most Latinos wouldn't be so shallow as to vote on one issue alone.

FWIW, I do support amnesty at this point.

[5280]

If the GOP drops the anti illegal immigration stance, what party is going to pick up on it?  It's only going to get worse then this country will become North Mexico.