July 18, 2013

GOP must agree to massively more immigration to avoid racially polarizing country

Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker is one of the better political reporters. He's even dared to write some subliminally ironic prose about Obama's road to the White House. But, when it comes to amnesty, he reflects the conventional wisdom in usefully condensed form.
KILLING THE IMMIGRATION BILL, POLARIZING AMERICA 
POSTED BY RYAN LIZZA

For House Republicans to reject Schumer-Rubio ...
... would intensify one of the less welcome political trends of the past few decades: the racial polarization of the electorate. In a recent paper, the political scientist Alan Abramowitz documented this “growing racial divide” in our system. “The growing dependence of the Democratic Party on nonwhite voters has contributed to the flight of racially and economically conservative white voters to the G.O.P. thereby further increasing the size of the racial divide between the party coalitions,” he noted. He predicted that this racial polarization would continue and deepen. 
The outcome of the immigration debate will decide how much this trend accelerates. Under one rather ominous scenario, House Republicans will kill immigration reform, and Democrats, led by President Obama, will mount a withering attack on the G.O.P. in the Hispanic community, blaming the Party for the bill’s demise. (In an interview with me earlier this year, a senior White House official was explicit that this is what would happen if Republicans scuttled the bill.) ... 
The net result of all this is the opposite of what the R.N.C. had in mind: a Republican strategy to defeat immigration reform, increase its support among whites, and make it harder for some nonwhites to vote. It’s a recipe for a future in which America’s two parties are largely defined by race. The unpleasant conclusion of this debate—and of the Obama years—could be the opposite of where we thought we were headed as a country. Rather than a multiracial future in which both parties compete aggressively for the votes of fast-growing nonwhite populations, Democrats and Republicans could become more cleaved than ever by race. The decision that Republicans make on immigration reform in the coming months will help determine that future.

Okay, but, you know, maybe importing tens of millions of nonwhite foreigners in the first place and then repeatedly boasting about how you'll use them to turn America into a permanent one party state might have something to do with the growing racial divide? I mean, I'm just sayin' ...

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

"gay marriage" didn't polarize America?

Anonymous said...

Lib-service:

YOU MUST UNITE WITH OUR DIVISIVE POLITICS.


Bantustan Bondini said...

The 1st graf excerpted there is neutral enough it can be read two ways. William F. Buckley said in the 90s that without monolithic black support Democrats would be a 3rd party in most of the U.S.

Shouting Thomas said...

Fabricating incidents of "white racism" in order to indict all whites as bigots certainly has nothing to do with dividing the country, right?

Anonymous said...

Trust our con-job or you're conning us out of our con.

It's like the Martin-Zimmerman.

Why not let Martin beat you as a 'creepyass gay cracka'?
Why be so hostile and 'racist' by trying to defend yourself?

heartiste said...

Do equalist apparatchiks just mutter "human groups are fungible... human groups are fungible" to themselves in padded mental masturbatoriums?

In related news, Detroit filed for bankruptcy. And diversity + proximity = war.

Anonymous said...

1. Waging economic and demographic warfare on one's fellow citizens should count as treason.

2. The anti-white liberal media spends all its time actively trying to racially polarize the country.

countenance said...

Related, also NYT:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/has-the-g-o-p-gone-off-the-deep-end/

Both spouting the same themes.

Boy, the NYT must really want this amnesty bill to pass more than anything in the world. I wonder why. (Cough cough, Carlos Slim, cough cough...)

countenance said...

My mistake. The article linked to here is New Yorker, not NYT.

As far as its subject matter, racial polarization in American elections is not unprecedented. To wit: The state of Mississippi.

The whole country is about to be an adverb of my own invention, Mississippiized.

Anonymous said...

The Democrats are the party of welfare and food stamps and government benefits. The Republicans aren't. So no matter how many Marco Rubios the Republican's nominate, no matter how much they come out in favor of immigration, poor Hispanics ain't gonna vote for them. People are going to vote for the party that promises them free Obamaphones - what a country! The Republicans are deluding themselves if they think they have a chance at the Hispanic vote unless they decide to outwelfare the Democrats, at which point they won't be Republicans any more.



Anonymous said...

Actually, opposing immigration--esp illegal kind--is what unites most groups across the board.

What Lizza is pissed about is how this issue is polarizing elites from the masses. But he pretends it's about white cons vs everyone else.

lynch-law Loctite said...

Dems sort of ran into a wall at the end of the last century, seemed in a bind where they could only placate the angry black side of the base by running bonafide race men, yet their complementary angry white faction has aesthetic disagreements with NAM candidates coming on too authentic. You need a Deval or Barack to thread the needle, under tight supply. The odd aspect of their illegal infusion plan is that Central American elites struggle with the same problem of selecting the right figurehead candidates who are superficially ethnic but not too vibrant. It's tricky.

Anonymous said...

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/07/18/teenage-intern-short-circuits-entire-white-house-press-system-by-asking-simple-question/

Anonymous said...

Mulattos more equal than mestizos.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

If the GOP is sincerely chasing Hispanic votes, why don't they hit back at the Democrat administration for its witch hunt and rabble rousing against Peruvian-descended George Zimmerman?

Why isn't Marco Rubio giving press conferences in Spanish declaring that the jury vindicated the rights of all Americans, including immigrant Hispanic Americans, to carry firearms for their personal protection?

Anonymous said...

If the GOP is sincerely chasing Hispanic votes, why don't they hit back at the Democrat administration for its witch hunt and rabble rousing against Peruvian-descended George Zimmerman?

Lee Atwater could probably figure out a (more or less) effective way to execute this as described, but the modern RNC is run by homosexual party boys who don't actually know any black people in their personal realm, or any Latinos who aren't either domestic servants or blond shampoo models like Cat Castellanos.

Eric said...

The net result of all this is the opposite of what the R.N.C. had in mind: a Republican strategy to defeat immigration reform, increase its support among whites, and make it harder for some nonwhites to vote.

Oh, is that what the RNC had in mind?

Let the Democrats mount their "withering" attack with Hispanics. Those guys aren't going to vote Republican anyway, and if it drives more white voters out of the Democratic party, so much the better.

Alfa158 said...

Democrats will have reason to worry if a massive amnesty does not pass. Native Democrats are generally not having quite as many children as conservatives and the naked racialism of their party is driving Whites increasingly into the Republican party. In 2008 versus 2012, Whites under 30 went from 9 points for Obama to 7 points for Romney. There are still enough Whites left that if the parties become even more polarized the Democrats will have a tougher time in elections.
They know that immigrants will always vote overwhelmingly D so their best hope is to help Republicans fool themselves into voting for amnesty.

Anonymous said...

Why isn't Marco Rubio giving press conferences in Spanish declaring that the jury vindicated the rights of all Americans, including immigrant Hispanic Americans, to carry firearms for their personal protection?

Why indeed?

Why indeed?

Honestly, that's a good 100-reply iSteve thread right there, if not a full-blown persistent iSteve meme for the foreseeable future: Why hasn't Boobeeo unloaded on Holder & Obama for their treatment of his constituent and fellow Hispanic, George Zimmerman?

the modern RNC is run by homosexual party boys

Which would go a long, long, long way towards explaining Boobeeo's behavior in all of this - if he's got the Florida equivalent of a Chicago "Man's Country" skeleton in his closet.

Matt Drudge would be the authority on that question [with DrudgeReport.com being the "HillBuzz.org" of a hypothetical Boobeeo presidency].

Sid Hudgens said...

I've got no evidence Rubio or Bubio or Rubeiot swings that way, but the outer appearance can't have hurt. I bet a lot of wealthy Palm Beach donors wanted to be in the room with him for the full cursus honorum.

Lizza's dug up some good stuff on the Marcoterie before, e.g. his aides' opinion that American workers "can't cut it" (presumably as poolboys or chauffeurs, is what they meant)

Anonymous said...

The Democrats are the party of welfare and food stamps and government benefits.

To include the fiat electrons which Uncle Ben doles out by the bazillions to his, ah, partially-inbred extended family there in the NYC usury racket.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the Varsity move here for the Republicans to develop a 3rd party in California and NY that panders directly to minorities in am extreme way? A true deep state Republican would create a strong communist party to compete in those states and then attack the Dims from the left AND the right. Plus at this point I would rather have a Communist than any Democrat. Or just about any Republican.

Anonymous said...

It's ominous!

Ominously ominous!

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

Gerald Ford once said that "a government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you've got." In other words, Democrats.

Blacks are beyond reach, the GOP is going to lose that vote 90/10 in perpetuity so it's pointless to even try. Ford's message might have some resonance with Hispanics, who are a little higher than blacks on the economic ladder and might be justifiably concerned that what little they've managed to salt away could be taken from them. The same message would probably work even better with Asians.

But the GOP is truly the stupid party. As Limbaugh has pointed out, the leadership seems embarrassed by its own voters, and apparently thinks Hispanics will eventually buy what they have to offer...someday. They fail to see that winning elections NOW is what matters, not what might happen in 2024. And they way to win elections now is to not piss off white voters.

Anonymous said...

One of the major reasons for puffing up the Trayvon Martin case far beyond its merits is so that blacks won't notice that our immigration policies are at least partially responsible for turning them into a permanent entrenched underclass.

Gloria

sunbeam said...

First of all, the Republican Leadership wants this bill passed.

They want to be able to claim they were against it (and for it too, if that plays in someone's district), but they want it to pass.

Second, this whole thing is inevitably going to lead to racially polarized parties in the US IMHO. Whether the Republicans or someone else is going to be the White party is kind of up in the air. This party won't be totally white, it is going to include asians probably, and maybe Indians from India.

I think the Democratic Party eventually becomes the de facto Hispanic party.

In the long run I kind of think Blacks are going to be hit the hardest by this.

Where other minorities end up is anyone's guess. American Indians you might say with the new Democratic Party, but I dunno. Genetics aside, they don't really seem to be in tune with that culture.

Anonymous said...

I think this is why the Zimmerman trial and trials in general can be so revelatory. They lay bare in the here and now what only evolves over decades of demographic change in the political system at large.

Even the most apolitical moderate (which is most of the country) who wants to avoid thinking about such unpleasantries as the continuing overwhelming power of tribalism in the modern world can't help but notice that in high-profile cases like Zims, what tribe you belong to pretty much decides your opinion.

In generalized politics, savvy commentators can obscure the evolving, long-term sorting of party affiliation among low-earning and high-earning identity groups by such things as focusing on the supposed unreasonable stubbornness of one side and still be able to convince large numbers of the naive and utopian that, of course, a non-tribalistic, globalized democracy is currently possible, if only those backwards cynics would get on board.

Anonymous said...

The Democrats who run the Democratic Party don't seem to worry about being blamed for immigration, if it turns out that bringing in all these people wasn't a good idea.

I think there's a lot of doubt and disagreement among the rank and file.

I wish somebody would ask some Big Name Democrat what percentage of of American voters would identify as Democrats in 2050 if there's a chronic unemployment or underemployment rate that twice as high as today's because there were too many people and not enough jobs.

Jack Quinn said...

Creepy-Ass Journalist Hackers

Matthew said...

The Dem's focus on how 'the GOP must support amnesty in order to win the growing Latino vote' isn't so much about fooling Republicans into believing they have to pass amnesty as it is a way of playing the race card against the Republicans by making them sound racist. It's attacking the GOP on race while downplaying the white vs. minority angle.

The Democratic Party knows how to deftly play the race/gender/sexual orientation card. They will always play it. Surrendering on a particular issue will never win you votes, because they'll just move on to another issue.

ricpic said...

...the modern RNC is run by homosexual party boys...

Is that true? Sure would explain a lot if it were.

Mr Smee said...

I thought of one of your recent Zimmerman articles when I saw this in the news- you know, the one where you wondered why the Justice Dept hadn't used a drone on Zimmmerman and been done with the headache:

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/52508584/#52508584

Anonymous said...

Clearly this Ryan Lizza fellow has the best interests of the Republican Party at heart.

Steve Sailer said...

When Ataturk ruled Turkey, he created his own Communist Party.

Anonymous said...

In generalized politics, savvy commentators can obscure the evolving, long-term sorting of party affiliation among low-earning and high-earning identity groups

If that's the case, we're not seeing it. East Asians, Subcontinentals and Jews are Democratic stalwarts. However, I would not be surprised at all to see a Jewish switch away from Democrats. They have a history stretching back on the order of thousands of years in white countries. They can truthfully claim to have been present during good times for some host countries (e.g. contrast the British experience with the Spanish), and in useful ways rather than just being nomadic pests like Gypsies, for example.

I don't believe that heading down the current path (i.e. turning the countries in which they have the largest presence into third world hellholes) is good for Jews or partial Jews with European admixture, of whom probably outnumber Jews at this point. From what I can see smarter Jews such as Maurice Glasman are realizing this, and this phenomenon will continue over time.

gubbler of the church of reformed chechenism said...

"I don't believe that heading down the current path (i.e. turning the countries in which they have the largest presence into third world hellholes) is good for Jews or partial Jews with European admixture, of whom probably outnumber Jews at this point. From what I can see smarter Jews such as Maurice Glasman are realizing this, and this phenomenon will continue over time."

Right. Jews have been pushing for more diversity to break the spine of white power. Once white majority power is broken, Jews will change their tune and come up with excuses to curtail immigration.

Just like Jews switched their position on free speech and racial profiling(in NY), they'll change their tune on immigration once they feel white majority power is broken for good.

All this diversity jazz wasn't about principle but about power. Once it's no longer useful for Jews to undermine white power any longer, Jews will support something like citizenism. And all the liberal sheep will just follow, just like they followed in 'gay marriage'.

Anonymous said...

The Republicans can surrender to the PC-multiculti juggernaut now or later, but need to realize the pro-Third-Worldization cultural elite is getting furiouser with each moment's delay.

Anonymous said...

What rock has Lizza(rd) been hiding under for the last 50 years?

The fact is that American politics *have* been defined by race ever since JFK started to court the so-called 'civil rights' band-wagon.
Since that time things have just gor more polarized, and not less, and will continue along that inexorable road.
The fact is that since the early '60s the Democrats have found race-hustling - and all the other 'minority' hustlings that fellow travel with it, to be the central defining dogma - and very lucrative and succesful it has proved too.
This will not change.

gata fight said...

Nat. Review op-ed: that Republican girl from Real World San Fran bashes Disney's Potemkin Latina/Democrat duquesa Longoria--this takes me back 20 years to watching the show.

Frau Katze said...

Too many whites are blank slatists. They really don't believe that there are inborn differences in ethnic groups/races. They are totally brainwashed, they simply are doubling down, despite all the evidence, that the only thing holding blacks down is racism.

Anonymous said...

It is in my state, ricpic. Two of the former mayors of my city were gay Republicans, one of whom was chairman of the Log Cabin Republicans for a while. My state senator for 10 years was a gay Republican. The former head of the GOP city committee was a gay Republican.

Of course, it is Massachusetts.

Felder said...

You guys that bitch about Republicans being sellouts are out of touch with reality. The best they can do is be liberal light. Anything else and the dem machine goes overboard to destroy them and they either don't get enough votes from the sheep in zombie land to get into office, or if they are already in office, they get kicked out/forced to resign.

Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul ring anyone's bells? They tried to go a bit farther to the right than Romney and how far did that get them?

Any real change will have to be effected from outside the system. Its too far gone at this point.

Anonymous said...

There are plenty of rich white conservatives. Why don't any of them buy up housing in Ryan Lizza's neighborhood/apartment building/condo complex and turn it into section 8 housing?

Anonymous said...

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113571/crevecoeurs-letters-american-farmer-dark-side

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

One of the major reasons for puffing up the Trayvon Martin case far beyond its merits is so that blacks won't notice that our immigration policies are at least partially responsible for turning them into a permanent entrenched underclass."

I am opposed to all immigration - legal as well as illegal. But I wouldn't put the blame for the state of blacks in America on Mexicans. That blacks largely make up a permanent entrenched underclass is mostly their own doing.

Anonymous said...

The Democrats are the party of welfare and food stamps and government benefits. The Republicans aren't. So no matter how many Marco Rubios the Republican's nominate, no matter how much they come out in favor of immigration, poor Hispanics ain't gonna vote for them. People are going to vote for the party that promises them free Obamaphones - what a country! The Republicans are deluding themselves if they think they have a chance at the Hispanic vote unless they decide to outwelfare the Democrats, at which point they won't be Republicans any more.

If that is so, why are there more people on welfare programs in the south than in some other states that vote Democratic but are mainly white. In fact, the counties that Republicans don't have people on welfare have good incomes. Take Placer County in California or Fort Bend County in Texas less poor minorities. Republican-Red State have high food stamp usage in South Texas it ties with New York City for Food Stamp usage. Welfare usage has nothing to do with poltical parties if Rick Perry wanted to really get rid of welfare he would deport 1 million Hispanics and get blacks to move to southern states or move up north.

Mr. Anon said...

I have always disliked this talk of "polarizing people" or of politicians "dividing people". As if it is only because the Democrats have made gay marriage an issue that conservatives are opposed to it. Conservatives are opposed to gay marriage because THEY are conservative and IT is "gay marriage". There ARE divisions amongst people. Politicians may exploit them (they certainly do exploit them) but they did not create them.

About a third of the electorate are liberal democrats. By the standards of any American from 1960 - even a yellow-dog Democrat from 1960 - these people are flaming, wild-eyed radicals. They vote for people like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi. I don't dislike them because Nancy Pelosi represents them - I dislike them because they are the sort of people who would vote for Nancy Pelosi. I don't want them, or anyone like them, to have say over my life.

beowulf said...

"When Ataturk ruled Turkey, he created his own Communist Party."

Ha, that's kind of a great idea.

"Lizza's dug up some good stuff on the Marcoterie [Rubio] before, e.g. his aides' opinion that American workers "can't cut it"..."

David Frum excepted, there doesn't seem to be any Republicans in Washington who understand what killed Romney last year was economic issues not social ones. The GOP would be better off making a bipartisan deal to raise minimum wage or import tariffs to close trade deficit (two issues that Romney should have but didn't run on).

A deal to cut market wages by importing guest workers won't add a single Republican voter but the donors like it so that's why hacks like Rubio are out pushing it.

Lizza Borden said...

"We must destroy this country in order to save it!"

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tt-rTWSDs4

Zimmerman done it.

Anonymous said...

David Frum excepted, there doesn't seem to be any Republicans in Washington who understand what killed Romney last year was economic issues not social ones. The GOP would be better off making a bipartisan deal to raise minimum wage or import tariffs to close trade deficit (two issues that Romney should have but didn't run on).

Well Republicans don't like minimum wage laws, so a better way would be to restrict immigration flow which will rise wages and even in red states there is still a minimum. As for Tariffs most white Republicans don't work in factories anymore as much, the Tea Party bunch are not machinists but another approach for increasing tariffs that will appeal to free trade Republicans is lowering the federal or state income taxes while increasing tariffs and duties.

Cail Corishev said...

The GOP would be better off making a bipartisan deal to raise minimum wage or import tariffs to close trade deficit (two issues that Romney should have but didn't run on).

Sounds great, but how do you make a bipartisan deal on tariffs when the other party is opposed to them too? I'd have loved to see them push a tariff to put the Democrats on the spot with their union backers, but that could only happen with a very different GOP which wouldn't have gotten us into this situation in the first place.

Raising the minimum wage is bad, but it's pretty small-potatoes bad compared to all the other damage that's being done, so it'd make sense to support it just to take that issue away from the other side. But again, one of the parties would have to represent lower-class workers for that to happen.

Anonymous said...

Sounds great, but how do you make a bipartisan deal on tariffs when the other party is opposed to them too? I'd have loved to see them push a tariff to put the Democrats on the spot with their union backers, but that could only happen with a very different GOP which wouldn't have gotten us into this situation in the first place.
Well, we have a lot of whiners one thing that I agree with the Tea Party, a guy makes a 1,000 a week taking passengers to the Airport but complains about it. A lot of people complain about the low paying jobs but should work 2 and get the wife to work one. In the low paying jobs you need to go to management but people don't want to do that they want that to be handed to them on a silver plater. One Tea party person had a sign that stated he work three jobs and didn't comp;lain about the system more folks need to do that

Marc B said...

"It’s a recipe for a future in which America’s two parties are largely defined by race".

The talking heads already gloat how the Tea Party events and the RNC area "sea of white." They love bragging that they have so many more non-white friends than the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul ring anyone's bells? They tried to go a bit farther to the right than Romney and how far did that get them?
Tom Tancredo is good but not Ron Paul. Ron Paul is opposed to e-verify both the left and right are bad on the immigration issue for different reasons. I use to think like you but I noticed that Republicans did nothing about illegal immigration in Texas or Orange County Ca in which I use to live. So, I don't think Republican or Democratic. The elite in both parties usually wants to screw the general public.

Anonymous said...

Either of my parents worked in a factory job. My mother was a telephone operator, automation reduce her job. Ma Bell paid usually better money than many factory assembly work except some of the aerospace companies. My dad was a bartender. Some of his jobs and the last job was a bartender at a Hotel in Anaheim that was union and he could good tips. People in the resturant work don't have to stay at the low paying waiter jobs. You can moved up into management or study at cooking school or become a bartender. Sometimes like the Jack fellow in three's company you have to do the low paying jobs in order to advance in cooking.

a Newsreader said...

Maybe the Republicans ought to learn the Democrats' game. Why not try to use the immigration issue as a wedge to attract black votes? Currently, some of the Republicans tiptoe around the issue by talking about black youth unemployment, but why not use their renowned dog-whistling tactics to antagonize black women against immigration?