Sean Hannity now supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants

[Simfan34]

Well, this is good news. Perhaps we don't need to wait until a floor-wiping Santorum 2016 candidacy to get this party to turn around.

Yes, Latinos may lean left economically. But, like blacks, it's really what is considered hostile and racist rhetoric that prevents the GOP from doing well in those demographics. Drop that and we can move towards increasing our share with latinos.

In related news, Sir Doctor Reverend General Herman Cain has encouraged his followers to look into their hearts and drop the abortion litmus for candidates:



Is our long national nightmare with wedge issue conservatism finally over?

Not sure what Cain's getting at here, but abortion strikes me as one of the few wedge issues where conservatives have more momentum. Abortion + rape is the only real bugbear.

Agreed, abortion should not be dropped. But perhaps this is a code for Rice in 2016?

[opebo]

Well, this is good news. Perhaps we don't need to wait until a floor-wiping Santorum 2016 candidacy to get this party to turn around.

Yes, Latinos may lean left economically. But, like blacks, it's really what is considered hostile and racist rhetoric that prevents the GOP from doing well in those demographics. Drop that and we can move towards increasing our share with latinos.

You have to push this disingenuous non-racist pretense for four years, and then nominate an uncle-Tom Hispanic in 2016.  That might work, and that's what they'll do.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In related news, Sir Doctor Reverend General Herman Cain has encouraged his followers to look into their hearts and drop the abortion litmus for candidates:



Is our long national nightmare with wedge issue conservatism finally over?

Not sure what Cain's getting at here, but abortion strikes me as one of the few wedge issues where conservatives have more momentum. Abortion + rape is the only real bugbear.

And even that could have been handled reasonably well if instead of saying anything that came close to implying that rape is God's will, those idiots had talked about not condemning a child's life because of the crime of its biological father.  I know that's why I oppose making exceptions for rape or incest, altho I also favor allowing first trimester abortions.  Of course my moderate hero position means that I ever ran I'd be opposed by both those who are pro-choice and anti-abortion.

[Lief 🗽]

Well, this is good news. Perhaps we don't need to wait until a floor-wiping Santorum 2016 candidacy to get this party to turn around.

Yes, Latinos may lean left economically. But, like blacks, it's really what is considered hostile and racist rhetoric that prevents the GOP from doing well in those demographics. Drop that and we can move towards increasing our share with latinos.

You have to push this disingenuous non-racist pretense for four years, and then nominate an uncle-Tom Hispanic in 2016.  That might work, and that's what they'll do.

The Republicans already have one all ready to go:

[The Mikado]

Well, this is good news. Perhaps we don't need to wait until a floor-wiping Santorum 2016 candidacy to get this party to turn around.

Yes, Latinos may lean left economically. But, like blacks, it's really what is considered hostile and racist rhetoric that prevents the GOP from doing well in those demographics. Drop that and we can move towards increasing our share with latinos.

You have to push this disingenuous non-racist pretense for four years, and then nominate an uncle-Tom Hispanic in 2016.  That might work, and that's what they'll do.

The Republicans already have one all ready to go:

Is Florida one of those states where he can run for President and for reelection to his Senate seat at the same time?

[Vosem]

Well, this is good news. Perhaps we don't need to wait until a floor-wiping Santorum 2016 candidacy to get this party to turn around.

Yes, Latinos may lean left economically. But, like blacks, it's really what is considered hostile and racist rhetoric that prevents the GOP from doing well in those demographics. Drop that and we can move towards increasing our share with latinos.

You have to push this disingenuous non-racist pretense for four years, and then nominate an uncle-Tom Hispanic in 2016.  That might work, and that's what they'll do.

The Republicans already have one all ready to go:

Is Florida one of those states where he can run for President and for reelection to his Senate seat at the same time?

Yes. I recall a DK diary which pointed this out -- Rubio doesn't have to give up his Senate seat to run in '16, but Rand Paul does. (I don't think there're any other commonly speculated-about other candidates in that Senate Class, are there?)

[Sbane]

    Another question that isn't even discussed so far, is the overall direction of legal immigration, unrelated to the issues of amnesty, DREAM act etc.  Right now, year after year, about 1 million future Democratic leaning voters come to the US legally, rain or shine, bad economy or good economy, year after year. Amnesty issues is just a side issue to this overall issue of massive, unending legal immigration. 
    On this issue the Democratic Party is winning, and it is winning so substantially that even Romney, who was allegedly so far to the right on the issue, didn't have a problem with this amount of massive immigration.  The GOP has got to realize that importing huge amounts of Democratic leaning future voters isn't helpful to them.  The typical immigrant to the US just quite simply isn't a future Republican.  There's a reason the political left is so in favor of mass immigration, something along the lines of "if we don't like the results the electorate is giving us, lets vote for a new electorate", a sort of gerrymandering on an international scale.
    I'd be intrested in seeing an immigration grand bargain, with amnesty coupled with instituting the proposals of the Barbara Jordan commission from the 90's (appointed by Clinton) which called for less legal immigration, and also a modernization of the birthright citizenship idea to bring it more in line with how many other modernized Western Democracies handle it.

Republicans should encourage more high skill immigration and try and restrict immigration due to family ties beyond you closest relatives. This ensures that immigrants are fairly well off in society. The problem for the Republicsns then is to somehow appeal to them while still appealing to their rural base. These immigrants may be well off but they will most likely be living in large cities around America and will identify with that part of American culture. As you know, Republicans don't do so well even with the whites who live in these areas. The day the Republicans manage that, they will be able to get a larger share of the affluent immigrants who are living there. I am thinking specifically of Asians, but high skill immigrants from any part of the world would likely behave in the same way. American politics aren't decided on economics, they are decided on culture and immigrants are not going to embrace the culture of years past as Republicans do. Of course they will be more interested in the future. And the democrats are on that side which is why they are still doing well with whites living in and near big cities.

[Scabr]

I never understood why smart Republicans think that: support for amnesty = Latino votes. Sean Hannity maybe, but Gingrich and Perry?

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

The Republican Party is hemorrhaging right now and has gone into full-blown damage control mode as a result. They will shift to the center on social issues and will probably shift a little more to the center on economic issues. They (we?) cannot afford to lose in 2016.

It doesn't surprise me that this is happening now.

No

[J. J.]

If someone comes here, works, stays out of trouble and learns English, they should be able to stay. 

[muon2]

This entirely rests upon the assumption that supporting amnesty would win Republicans support among Latinos, which simply isn't the case. All the polling of Latinos shows the primary reason for their inclination towards the Democrats is economics/welfare.

King made a good point about Bush's success among Latinos: it wasn't because he was some kind of economic leftist.

Republicans simply need to be at ease with the influx and increase of Latinos in this country, put forth Latino candidates, and chill some of their class rhetoric. This involves clamping down on the more unsavory elements in the GOP whose immigration stances are a thin veil for their racism. Bush did well with Latinos because he was from Texas, had Hispanic family ties, and seemed incredibly comfortable around them. His Spanish wasn't great, but at least he cared enough to try and didn't seem like a phony when he did it. Immigrants and their children are naturally drawn to an entrepreneurial message, which is something the GOP can tap into.

This isn't like the black vote, as much as Democrats are hoping it is. Republicans can certainly get 40% of the Hispanic vote if they put forth the effort and stop appealing to the worst elements in the party.

I live in a heavily Latino community (>50% in 2010). My observations of 2004 in my area are in agreement with UI's analysis.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This involves clamping down on the more unsavory elements in the GOP whose immigration stances are a thin veil for their racism.

Do you really, honestly think that the reason I oppose amnesty is because I am racist?

It is easy to denegrate and delegitimize a position held by people who are distant or you don't have to interract with. Now you do! You can either drop the presumptuous nature of that sentiment or you can personally insult me.

I do agree you can sell a conservative message to hispanics, though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sean Hannity just kinda, sorta, backed off of this.

"Secure the border first, means just that, secure the border first and then you deal with the other issues... and the Democrats will never do that...Republicans need to say no".


He spliced in stuff about the debt celing that I clipped out, so I may have misunderstood it.

[Benj]

    I'd be intrested in seeing an immigration grand bargain, with amnesty coupled with instituting the proposals of the Barbara Jordan commission from the 90's (appointed by Clinton) which called for less legal immigration, and also a modernization of the birthright citizenship idea to bring it more in line with how many other modernized Western Democracies handle it.

"Modernization" of birthright citizenship is basically impossible. The Supreme Court has made very, very clear what the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment means, and it means birthright citizenship in no unequivocal terms. You'd need a constitutional amendment to change that definition, and there's no way in hell that would ever pass the Senate, let alone get the requisite states. The Democrats wouldn't tolerate it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

    I'd be intrested in seeing an immigration grand bargain, with amnesty coupled with instituting the proposals of the Barbara Jordan commission from the 90's (appointed by Clinton) which called for less legal immigration, and also a modernization of the birthright citizenship idea to bring it more in line with how many other modernized Western Democracies handle it.

"Modernization" of birthright citizenship is basically impossible. The Supreme Court has made very, very clear what the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment means, and it means birthright citizenship in no unequivocal terms. You'd need a constitutional amendment to change that definition, and there's no way in hell that would ever pass the Senate, let alone get the requisite states. The Democrats wouldn't tolerate it.

You are wrong.  The Supreme Court has never ruled that those born here of parents who were not here legally are citizens under the 14th amendment.  What it is has ruled is that those born of a parent here legally, even if said parent was not a citizen and never could become one under the then current law of the United States, were citizens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those words are why for example children born of embassy staff do not get US citizenship.  It is no great leap from there to a law that denied citizenship to those born of illegals here being constitutional.  I agree that it would stand no chance of being passed anytime in the next couple of decades, but it would be constitutional in my opinion.

Incidentally, I think that the amnesty issue could possibly be finessed by offering illegal immigrants status as a US national rather than as a US citizen as part of any amnesty program.

[The Free North]

Not sure if this will do anything other than show that conservatives are getting pretty scared...