The prospect of new citizens voting Democratic stiffens the resolve of Texas Republicans, big and small, to oppose comprehensive immigration reform — virtually guaranteeing that their fears will come to pass.
If I said that the reason that Republicans oppose comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship — now being championed by both Democrats and the more bright and reasonable GOP leaders — and is because they are afraid of being voted out of office, you would probably think that I was being partisan. All right, that might be possible — but how about if a Congressman from Texas says it, out loud, to the Associated Press?
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) on Monday told the AP that he doesn’t support comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship because it might get him voted out of office.
Marchant represents Dallas, Texas, where there are estimated to be thousands of undocumented people residing. His district is 24 percent Hispanic. Yet, he was quite straightforward when explaining that these numbers worked against him, and informed his opposition to reform:
“It’s hard to argue with the polling they’ve been getting from the national level,” said Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, referring to signs of serious problems for Republican presidential candidates if immigration laws aren’t rewritten. “I just don’t experience it locally.”
The proposed immigration overhaul “is very unpopular in my district,” said Marchant, who represents suburbs west of Dallas. “The Republican primary voters, they’re being pretty vocal with me on this subject.” Besides, he said, “if you give the legal right to vote to 10 Hispanics in my district, seven to eight of them are going to vote Democrat.” [emphasis in TPM recounting of story]
I know that this sounds like the kind of thing that a partisan like me might make up, but it ain’t. As much as Republicans talk about how Latinos are a natural fit for their party, not even they believe it. They believe that new citizens, from DREAM Act kids on down, will vote Democratic — and so they oppose enfranchising them. It’s a raw, naked power play, doing incalculable damage to people just to maintain political advantage. It’s sick and it’s wrong and it’s going to cost the Republican Party in the long run — even if they do successfully block comprehensive immigration reform.
There’s an alternative way for the Republican party to compete politically: move back towards the center — and to rational policy debate. But I suppose that trying to keep Latinos and Asians from becoming citizens is a lot easier.
The fallback strategy is apparently to hope that people will just forget about this once reform is done — or once growth in these immigrant communities means that many of them get to vote anyway.
They’re counting on your forgiving and forgetting. Will you?
(And OC Republicans: you’re a pretty intelligent lot — how do you see this playing out for you? Hoping that Asians won’t notice?)
And, oddly enough, that’s only the second stupidest Texan Republican story of the day. There’s also this guy: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/06/18/2171931/fetus-masturbate-burgess/.
And then, back on topic, we have another “stupid Republican Congressman on immigration reform story” as well. And look — it’s Dana Rohrabacher!
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/06/dana_rohrabacher_boehner_rubio.php
I read this. Why did you say OC Republicans are “a pretty intelligent lot?” Seriously? I mean, that’s true about maybe as many as we could count on both your hands and one of mine.
The ones who read OJB are pretty intelligent! And they’re the ones who will see this.
Many of the county’s other Republicans are intelligent as well. Generally, the problem with them isn’t primarily intellectual, but moral.
Behold, your “new” Republican Party;
http://news.yahoo.com/house-committee-takes-tough-immigration-bill-071515990.html
Diamond – why your concern for Republicans and Asian illegal immigrants? I don’t believe there are many Asians that are illegal compared to hispanics. Do you know something that I don’t know?
What I know is that OC Republicans seem to have given up on Latinos — but they are still keen to appeal to Asians, as is evidence from the Chang-Kim-Nguyen-Steel axis that they intend to run down the west side of the county. I haven’t compared the prevalence of unauthorized residents of Latino and Asian heritage. I guess you have — or maybe you’re pulling your “belief” out of your bottom.
I do know at least one thing that you don’t know: as North Vice Chair of the Democratic Party, I’ll be be doing everything I can to hang the Republican Party’s benighted position on immigration around the necks of candidates in my area — because that sort of prospect is one of the few things that might make Republicans think twice about anti-minority policies. Now you can’t say that you weren’t warned.
I’ve heard this from many Repubs-that if immigration reform goes through, kiss the Republican party goodbye.
I think that that’s absolutely crazy. There will still be a Republican Party. It just won’t be able to get away with being so incredibly extreme.
I’m perfectly happy with there being a “green eyeshades and party pooper” Republican Party to argue against our spending too much and becoming “morally weak.” I my disagree with them on both in most cases, but that brings a check and balance into the process that I think has its place. I’m happy to fight those things out. But the excesses of the current party? They’re neither necessary for the Republican Party nor are they particularly Republican as a matter of political philosophy. (Or at least they shouldn’t be.)
My reply to that would be to define the excesses of the party. It’s really in the eye of the beholder. I’ll totally agree with you that the Republican party needs a makeover. How would you define excess though? Are people who attend church on weekends a part of that excess? Are people who are for adoption considered excessive? Are couples (no matter what your orientation) who work hard to stay together considered excessive?
You ask about three possible excesses:
(1) People who attend church on weekends? No, my wife and kids do. People who attend the likes of Westboro Baptist? Yes.
(2) People who are for adoption? No, I’m for adoption. I just don’t think that we should prevent women from having abortions if they choose.
(3) Couples who work hard to stay together? Of course not. My recollection, though, is that divorce and desertion are lower in blue states.
I’d think that even the Republican party wouldn’t associate themselves with Westboro Baptist church.
I’d hope not, at least. There are other examples of bigoted and repressive churches.
And this is why the Republican party needs a makeover. They are known as the anti-choice, anti-marriage for gays, anti-you-name-it, when there are many in the party who are in the middle.
They are up you-know-what creek without a you-know-what, stuck in between a hard place and a you-know-what. They’d like to embrace latinos, but their fragile majority would shatter if their hater contingent abandoned them. They’d like to mellow out on the gay stuff and the women’s reproductive rights stuff, but their fragile majority would shatter if the 1950’s moralists abandoned them. And I oscillate between reveling in the spectacle of their self-strangulation, and knowing that we need a decent humane opposition party to keep Dems honest.
…probably why I make an extra effort to give space on this blog to Republicans with brains and hearts.
I suppose the question is, what does America want?