GOP immigration policy supports legalization!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just like the Senate's bill, another status quo proposal. The only difference here is that they get to exploit the same group instead of luring in another group to enslave.

I think more so then anything this is a stunt. They hope the Democrats will block this and insist on more and thus the GOP can hit them from being unwilling to compromise. This strategy will off course fail miserably.

In any case, I do not think this alone will be enough to change the voting patterns of the Hispanic US citizens. But, to the extent that it is accompanied by reduction in anti-Hispanic vitriol and race-baiting by the mainstream Republicans, it is going to take away some of the urgency in that electorate that has been building up. It is a good first step - especially if it, actually, passes. As long as it is not a one-shot exercise in pandering, I could see this, at least, stopping the deterioration in Republican prospects with the Hispanic electorate. Still a VERY long way to go, though.

Immigration reform was never going to win Hispanic votes regardless of the strcuture. The game was always going to be about whether or not the GOP can sell the Hispanic community or at least a significant minority (40% or so) on some form of conservative or conservative leaning governing agenda.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Finally!!!!!! Now Marco Rubio can get that off his back.

How does this help Rubio. If the debate resumes in the middle of primary season, the talk radio types rial up the base over this, if anything it might just retire Lindsay Graham and possibly Alexander as well.

Hardly leaves Rubio any better off.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Don't blame this on the South, hopper. The rest of the country, the Northeast, and even New Jersey has had its fair share of outright nativists and not all of them were far right even. Meanwhile, you have had Republicans like Graham, Wicker, Lott, from that very deep South who have supported comprehensive immigration reform. Going further out you have had big socons from "culturaly southern" parts of the country like Sam Brownback, George Bush and even Chris Cannon, who have been very "compassionate" on this issue.

Republicans are not "fine with Hispanics". I don't believe that the various Latino groups are much different any other groups with other variables held in constant. What is different is that the GOP is very difficult at micro managing, hell managing at all its messaging as you guys have referred to in general. It is no different from what happened with Todd Akin, just on another issue. The Republicans have a problem with all groups that are not inherently conservative or othewise pre-disposed to vote Republican for some reason or another. I hope my post on this matter in another board doesn't give people the wrong impression, in the right set of circumstances Republicans could very well win amongst Latinos and even those who are second and first generation. However, they are fighting history and it is not because Latinos as a race love governmnet, but because recent immigrants of all races are less connected to the society and one party ostensibly serves to help such people. It is the Republicans' messaging and lack of a governing agenda that keeps this so, not anything inhernet with the individual latino, or Asian or even probably some European groups which the GOP probably stuggles with as well. I think we can broadly agree on this statement if not so on the specifics so much.

The problem for the community and the GOP isn't immigration policy so much as it is the inability of Republicans to be disciplined about what they say, how they say it and so forth. Romney supported a Dream Act, supported reforming and fixing legal immigration and supported higher levels of legal immigration (all positions I am sympathetic too at least too some extent I will point out) an anti-immigrant xenophobe if I ever saw one. He had the right mix precisely to avoid beding defiend as anti-immigrant whilst opposing illegal immigration something most others like King and Tancredo failed at; however, he became defined by his praise for the AZ law in the primary and for the Self-deportation comment, which as I have pointed out is not a policy, but a consequence and one that will likely continue even under a failed comprehensive plan.

I think the GOP needs to pass immigration reform, just so it doesn't keep resurfacing nationally.  Every time that it does, it gives the GOP's anti-immigration wing a chance to let loose a bunch of xenophobic comments.  The policy barely matters. When Republicans talk about self-deportation and characterizing immigration as a cultural threat and the millions of giant calved Mexican drug smugglers, it makes the GOP seem, rightly or wrongly, like a whites only party.

That only works if the plan itself is a success. I do agree that the failure to actually fix the issues has bread animousities. If Bush or Obama had actually fixed the problem when they promised to, there never would have been an AZ immigration law.

Well, I would think it would be obvious that a big chunk of your party is, at best, not very comfortable with Hispanics. It goes far beyond just the issue of immigration, extending to campaigns against Spanish language, insinuations that Hispanic culture is inferior, statist,  and/or detrimental to the US, etc., etc. (if I got a dollar every time I hear/read such comments from self-identified Republicans, I would be rich).

Anti-illegal-immigration arguments are frequently use to cover up such sentiments. The absence of a feasible or practical immigration route for most Latin Americans makes the claim that the objection is simply to "illegality" sound quite hollow. In fact, many of those bringing up these arguments are not very capable of distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration (whether because they are not very smart, or because they allow their true feelings to slip out). Many politicians seem to encourage the double entendre here - using the "anti-illegal" rhetoric to wink and signal their constituents that they truly share their dislike of Hispanics/Mexicans/whatever.

A Republican-sponsored immigration plan, especially, if besides the legalization, it provides for a proper legal immigration pathway, would take a lot of the sting out. Of course, its side-effect might be making your party a lot less popular among some of its current constituents.

Maybe to some extent, becuse a position will lure people with alterior motives. There are a lot of people who oppose all immigration, who are zero-growthers and so forth who are lured to anti-illegla immigration message. The problem for Republicans is not that such people are voting for them, is that they are letting such component of the coalition define the whole affair, and thus that pushes people who don't share those views away. I don't see anyone stating that Hispanics are inherently statist. I did see Coulter and others state that first and second generation Hispanics are generally in favor of the Party that will best help them integrate into society and for two hundred years that has been Democrats, who didn't always support big governent obviously. In that sense it is not stating Hispanics are different, but that they are very much like Irish or other groups who came one hundred years ago. At the same time, this means that they are winnable at some point for the GOP.

I cannot control what a racist or a bigot is going to do. All I can do is select the policies that I think work best and thne work the politics as best as possible to get them enacted. I have never approached immigration policy from a racial approach, have always aimed to point the diversity of immigrant groups as well as the consquences for minorities fo a failed policy. There is only so much bandwidth or time to mention so much. The politics necessitate specialized appeals to various ethnic groups because each one is pre-disposed to react a certain way not because of what they are, but because of when and how they are. As for distingusing between the two (legall and illegal immigration), I have done that extensively myself but a politician with thirty seconds to respond cannot. It is necessary to regulate who enters the country, because even the best country has limits, and illegal immigration renders such control hollow and meaningless. We should seek to end illegal immigration if for no other reason then to end the abuses, but also for this purpose as well. I think America can support more legal immigrants, particular if the illegal variety was stopped, but I am not sure iti s a one to one ratio. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't and I would feel more comfortable with it being based off an objective analysis then from requests of CEO's who obviously have a vested interest.

At this point, probably because of the mistakes Romney made, such may very well be the case that the GOP has to support such. However, just because it is good politically doesn't mean it is good policy and I think America has been greatly hurt by putting the former first and the latter second. I continue to view any attempt to legalize on a massive basis, without sufficient "counter-incentive", merely a door not to greater minority GOP support but to continue the abuses of the status quo for as long as possible. I have no problem with legal immigration or fixing such, with a dream act (provided it is well structured), or even normalizing the status of those who "fell through the cracks" of a complex mess of a system after trying to do it legally. Precisely because I don't approach this with a racial lense, do I thus think that Latinos would refrain from demanding a bad policy if convinced such was the case about said policy. It was Romney's job to do the convincing and he didn't even try. His people thought it imposible of course, but even if it had only yieled another two or three pecent it would have been worth it still and would have saved Florida.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well with the messaging the GOP hasn't been good. I think part of the problem had been the Tea Party Republican in Congress who wanted to say "no" to everything. How do you even have a chance to get a message out there when you can't pass anything and you leave Congress in a standstill for 3 years? Finally they seem to be getting out of that gridlock and passing things now. The Dems have been very disciplined in their messaging(gotta give them credit) and have the MSM on your side helps them moderately.

Two hundred years? No Hispanics have not been in the US that long. Remember in the early 1980's they were only 3% of the US electorate.

No first and second generation Latino's like Big Government but the numbers do drop to 58% of 3rd generation Latino's who favor a government with larger services while 36% favor a government that's smaller with fewer services. Its an odd stat because looking at the 2012 election stats among Latino's it seems like the older they were the more Republican they voted. I just think maybe younger Latino's are like Non-Hispanic Whites in that sense that the younger Latino's vote more D than older Latino's do as do younger Non-Hispanic Whites vote more D than older Non-Hispanic White.

BTW, I don't count NC and VA as part of the Deep South. GA is on the borderline electorally. I define MS, SC, AL, and maybe Louisiana as the Deep South electorally.

Granted, but in some ways you see a greater willingness amongst certain elements of more tea party (Rand Paul) or pre-tea party types (Toomey and Coburn) to work on issues that McCain and the other traditional compromisers refused on. DADT, Background Checks, ethenol subsidies and so forth apply to at least one of these or more.

Since when are all Immigrants Hispanic, hopper? I said the Democrats have been the party of first and second generation immigrants for two hundred years. What is incorrect about that? The Federalists tried to get New Engladn to succeed in 1806 precisely becuase of immigrants pouring into the new Louisiana Territory and thus being likely Jefferson voters. And yes, there were people of Spanish descent in Florida, Texas, California and New Mexico going back centuries, regardless.

Nothing I said is inherently in disagreement with what the possibility of a generational thing. I just said that historically, the Federalists, Whigs, Know-Nothings and Republicans have not been favorable to immigrant groups whilst Democrats used local machines to help get them jobs and such and thus integrate them into society, especially in New York and Boston. That is why I said for almost two hundred years it was the case even when they were the small gov't party as opposed to wanting bigger gov't such was the case.

Thats nice, but all the politicians I listed as Deep South amnesty advocates are from MS and SC. McCain is also from MS originally, or at least his family was according to what Lott said in a speech in 2007. So I don't see the point in narrowing them down. I have no connection personal or otherwise to the Deep South regardless, but I do have a problem with flawed narratives. And exempting NC from your narrative actually renders it less accurate. McCrory even whilst still running as an Ike Republican, praised the AZ immigration Law, whilst Dalton was at best hessitant to criticize it. Perdue also ran adds pretending to be a border hawk just beofre the 2008 election to coopt McCrory's message.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Generational Voting-I was just adding a side issue that may be connected to Hispanic Voting Patterns not nessacarily  objecting to anything you wrote. Your probably right about the Dems being friendlier or friendly to 1st and 2nd generation Immigrants than the Republicans are/were. The Dems wanted Smaller Government at one time? I don't know about that even  Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann might disagree with you on that one. Ornstein and Mann use DW-Nominate for Congressional Scoring for both parties.

Arguing that the parties have not changed as much as the generally accepted narrative is one my of my oft repeated lines. I have read arguements that Jackson with his spoils system and then Jefferson with the Lousiana Purchase render them for bigger government obviously. That is certainly true, but for a long time the Democrats were opposed to central banking that their opponents supported and such forth on numerous other issues like states rights and the like related to the Civil War (of course I have also stressed that such was only attached out of convenience and generally the whole notion that every pro-slavey/Segregationist politician was a conservative beyond what sutied them on that issues is easily debunked as well) until the dawn of the Progressive era. And of course there is the local arena, where as I started, they used machines to handout groups and such forth to newly arrived immigrants in exchange for their votes.

 I do wonder how any scoring system could be accurate since the issues would change with the times, rendering a standard difficult to measure accurately.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

North Carolina-The State has been trending Democratic in recent Presidential Voting for a number of cycles now. I know for state and (local races probably) the state has elected Democrats over Republicans for a number of years now. The state last had a Republican Governor in the early 1990's before McCroy won last year. I know the State Democratic Party is nowhere near as liberal a the National Democratic Party is.

The NC Democratic Party has since the 1970's been dominated by Progressive types who managed to keep up their populist appeals with John Edwards types who could appeal to rural voters. At the time, the middle and upper class white voters who were heavily GOP dominated the urban counties of Wake and Mecklenburg whilst the Democrats did well in the rural areas of the Mountains (save for the GOP pockets in certain counties), Central and Eastern Parts of the state as well amongst the mill workers, farm laborours and minorities.

Since the 1990's you have had growth of minorities in the cities, the flight of Republican voters from them, the rise of younger more liberal urban whites in those same cities, and the decline of the Democrats in the rural areas. Basically the same thing that has happened elsewhere. Because of timing, the combination of 2010 and 2012 have left state government the most Republican that it has ever been, whilst the state GOP peaked in the early 2000s in terms of voting strength. 

Just because the NC Democratic Party put on a populist face, doesn't mean it is any less liberal andn ow that it feels it no longer needs those voters, it won't hessitate to run more to the left. Obama's victory certainly emboldens that illustrating what strong minority and young voter turnout can do and a Progressive campaign that can rally such will be very alluring to the party.