In 2008 the Democrats saw a swelling of Latino vote in their favor. They then proceeded to commit two fatal errors. First, they assumed all latinos are alike. Second they assumed latinos would be locked to the Democrats if they suddenly became pro any kind of immigration as long as it is Latino.
The lack of awareness here is indeed amazing. I live in Houston, so it is in fact a majority-minority city. Views on illegal immigration in the Latino community are known to be complex. “They” do not want anyone’s grandmother or children brought here when young to be deported, but “they” do not approve at all of individuals who come here illegally “jumping ahead” of others that they know of to be applying for an immigrant visa according to US law from their country of origin. “They” consider that massively unfair.
Then, as you say, is the more complex issue of who “they” is. Mexicans are not Columbians are not Salvadorans, “they” most certainly are NOT Cubans, who are unabashed Trumpsters.
Pew polling shows clearly that the more affluent and the more educated the Latino, the higher their likelihood that that vote GOP. This creates a very interesting dilemma for the Democrats, as it is clear that more uneducated they keep the Latinos, the better results they will obtain from that demographic.
(I would never be so cynical, of course, as to suggest that the Democrats deliberately insure that schools in low-income wards are ineffective, and oppose school choice, simply because they want to keep minority groups uneducated and voting Democratic.)
(Well, I don’t THINK I would be that cynical.) :-)
Here’s a fun fact. In the last Texas gubernatorial election, which pitted the wheelchair bound, wall-supporting, illegal deportations supporting arch-conservative Greg Abbott and a Lieutenant Governor (Dan Patrick) that makes Abbott look like Karl Marx, pitted against the California-heavily-funded sneaker wearing abortion supporting Wendy Davis, after Obama had one 75% of the Latino vote in 2012, Davis could only manage about 54% of the Latino vote, despite her constant and incessant promises to support amnesty for illegal aliens.
The data also show that successive generations of immigrants drop the “hyphenated American” bit, and even stop describing themselves as “Latino” — which, it should be noted, is an artificial demographic in the first place. You can be white and Latino at the same time. All you need is family lineage from an arbitrary group of countries.
Quite right. Another fun fact: In Harris County (Houston) Latinos and Anglos intermarry at an unbelievably high rate == close to 50%.
But if successive generations of Mexican immigrants don’t identify as Latino, and are strongly against illegal immigration, what does this mean for the next decade or two in politics? I think it bodes terribly for the Democrat party. First, you can only keep a facade going for a limited time.
Key point here. Why the turnaround from opposing illegal immigration to supporting what is effectively “no borders” types of policies?
Well, peel the onion. The Dems live in far more terror of their own voters than the GOP does. We have currently reached “peak progressive”, where about 25% of the Dem voters self-describe that way. That bunch demands policies which don’t have a prayer of passing in a broad national referendum, and the real Democrats know it. BUT, they have to appease those voters; if they ever move in even small numbers to a Green party, the Dems are toast forever. So, they have somehow thread this needle and sound like they support policies they don’t, and water down that support enough to keep their centrists in the Dem fold.
They failed miserably at this in 2016. But “no borders” is a desired policy of those future Green voters.
If memory serves, we are the only first world nation on the planet that does not have a merit based immigration system.
I’m a little confused by this statement. Unlike many nations, we have a rather rigorous set of requirements before an immigration visa is issued, the only exception to that being if an “anchor” has already been established for a particular nuclear family. Our immigrants must, before that visa is issued, demonstrate that they have an education or skill that we can use, AND have sufficient financial resources (either by personal bond, or by bond from the anchor, be that family or employer) so as to minimize the risk of being thrown into public assistance.
My husband is the expert on this, having filed (he’s an attorney) for a host of family members over the years, and he has much less hair because of the experience. So, if we need to hone that down a bit, I can get him involved in the discussion.
The Democrats have painted themselves into a bad corner. It is one in which they are going to lose the “support” they’ve mistakenly relied on via demographics. Basing politics on demographics has historically been successful in the short run (as it was in Germany), but an abject failure followed by backlash in the long run. The only question is: how long will it take, this time?
Bingo. And what’s interesting is that they seem completely obvious that they are playing Russian Roulette with the immigration issue.