Gerrymandering and immigration and the GOP

Published June 19, 2014

by Gary Pearce, Talking About Politics, June 17, 2014.

Eric Cantor’s defeat, immigration reform, gerrymandering and Republican presidential hopes all got rolled up together last week in a classic demonstration of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Cantor’s opponent, David Brat (I love that name), attacked him for being soft on immigrants. That struck fear in the hearts of other Republicans in Congress. That killed all hopes of passing reform this year.

 

That, in turn, spelled trouble for Republicans who want to win the White House in 2016. They not only lose the growing Hispanic vote, but also the growing South Asian vote. Plus, the GOP’s perceived hostility to immigrants and their children also alienates independent suburban women, polls show.

 

All of this, in a particularly ironic turn, stems from the Republicans’ great success at gerrymandering congressional districts. They drew themselves districts that have few Hispanics. The result: Republican members of Congress benefit from immigrant-bashing, while Republican candidates for President pay the price.

http://www.talkingaboutpolitics.com

June 19, 2014 at 7:35 pm
Norm Kelly says:

So kind of libs to volunteer information that will help the Republicans be more electable.

So unfortunate that at the same time the post is so full of misinformation. But the biggest play in the lib playbook is to repeat the same lie often enough, loud enough, in enough places and low information voters accept it as truth.

Republicans are NOT anti-immigrant. Republicans are not out to 'get' immigrants.

Why would legal Asian immigrants dislike Republicans for wanting to keep immigration LEGAL? What part of those who wait in line the way they are supposed to being upset with people who want to maintain this process makes sense to libs? Wouldn't it make more sense if the ones who waited their turn to be upset with those who jump the line (break the law!)? I know if I were an honest Asian immigrant who went through the proper channels, followed the law, and became an American citizen the right way, I would be extremely upset at all those who simply decided the law doesn't apply to them and they SHOULD be allowed to break the law. I would be upset that these law breakers feel ENTITLED to the choice of breaking a law and being rewarded for it with citizenship.

And what part of enforcing the law on illegal immigration makes ANYONE so upset? Why is it that libs, from the occupier to senile Harry, to pitiful Pelosi, and especially our own K, want to reward law breakers? What is it about legal immigration that irks libs so much? And why is it that libs insist on lumping law breakers in with legal immigrants? Even Gary in his post refers not to illegal aliens but to 'immigrants'. You see, libs are trying to get everyone to erase the line of distinction. The line is that immigrants are legal, following the laws of our country; showing respect for our country before they even get here. The line is that illegal aliens chose to break our laws in order to get here and then expect to be rewarded for it or at the least forgiven. Immigrants are legal. Immigrants are NOT under attack by conservatives or Republicans. Illegal aliens are under attack by conservatives AND thinking people because their FIRST ACT is to break our laws. Their first act is to flip us the bird and ask us for forgiveness and rewards.

There's not much about recent lib/democRAT/socialist policies that makes sense. And most of those same policies are actually bad for the country. The lib/socialist policies are bad for the economy. The lib/socialist policies are bad for the 'average' (legal) American citizen. The recent lib/socialist policies are bad for the pay scales of (legal) American citizens. What part of allowing in illegal immigrants who lack marketable skills makes sense for BOOSTING the American economy or the average income of (legal) American citizens? How does flooding the already depressed job market with low-skill illegal aliens actually RAISE the income of ANYONE? Can ANY lib/socialist/Demoncrat or editorial poster like Gary explain any of this?

Or is it simply satisfactory for libs to sit on the sidelines and throw darts at those who prefer to uphold the law? Is it simply acceptable for libs to sit on the sidelines and throw darts at those who are more interested in maintaining the American economy than on generating illegal voters (who will obviously vote for the party that ignored their law-breaking - or so the libs expect!).

I believe every American citizen should be standing up to support every Republican who supports enforcing the law as it currently stands BEFORE doing anything like 'comprehensive immigration reform'. What does the lib plan for 'comprehensive immigration reform' consist of? Amnesty for those who have already broken our laws. Automatic citizenship which will allow illegal aliens to take advantage of our social support programs, more properly known as government give-away programs. Obamascare for all newly minted ex-illegal alien citizens. Food stamps for the poor ex-illegals. More English as a second language classes in the local school systems, overwhelming the ability of most schools ability to pay for/hire enough teachers and costing millions in local tax dollars. There is NO GOOD PART of 'comprehensive immigration reform' as it's defined by libs/socialists/Demoncrats. Every part of their 'plan' is wrong for our country, wrong for our economy, wrong for American families and American budgets. It might guarantee some Demoncrat political victories, but even this doesn't bode well for the future of our country or our freedoms.