Read the whole article. Its from Cato so nobody can just brush it off as liberally biased. It’s very interesting. Obviously you don’t necessarily agree but it’s a good intellectual exercise to see whether the arguments hold water.
I will be paying extra attention to Texas to see if and how the course of their politics get affected.
California’s left turn was caused by Reagan’s immigration amnesty, which turned many illegal immigrants into legal residents and then legal voters.
Illegal immigrants were preferred by Republicans in the beginning to get cheap labor to weaken unions and reduce wage inflation. Unions as a democratic stronghold has been really hostile to illegal immigrants for many years. In the early years of illegal immigration, Republicans are the real friend to illegal immigrants.
However, as time goes by, Democrats discovered the usefulness of the Latino votes and started to embrace illegal immigration, while Republicans start to push back against welfare, education and other taxpayer cost for illegal immigrants. The attitude change towards immigration is mostly a different attitude towards tax and social welfare. California’s proposition 187 is a reflection of this difference, it’s a result of the fundamental difference on tax. It’s the result, not the reason.
No matter what R does, D has got Latino votes due to the fundamental interest alignment on tax and social benefit. Latinos are socially conservative and some of them, especially those well-to-do Latinos, will support R. But the majority of the L will support D, it does not really matter that R does. That’s why Trump even got more L votes than Romney.
The racial line-up for B and L are overwhelming and it does not really matter what R or D does. The future political trend is determined by W, and A with a smaller population. I think the future political competition will be intensely on the independent W and A. One potential change could come from LGBTQ, with Thiel as the earliest symbo, If LGBTQ stops its overwhelming support for D and becomes half D and half R, the only deciding votes will be from independent R and A. Race will become less important in politics.
All this means a moderation of policies, which should be good for most people.
I don’t think you even bother to read that article. It’s well sourced and well written, IMHO.
Without Reagan’s immigration amnesty, the number of L votes would be too small to be a factor in 90s. It might be too unpopular for R to criticize Reagan.
Of course, Reagan gives amnesty with the condition of strict enforcement of immigration laws, which did not happen of course. I am curious whether Reagan understands that strict enforcement might not be implemented.
Even without California’s proposition 187, D can still push for more social welfare to gain L votes, It’s a natural mutual attraction. Liberals are smart to understand their policy tools.
Correlation is not a causation. And economics trumpet ideology.
I think D is in trouble now and there will be a huge internal fight. Midwest W has shown its importance, but D is heavily invested in minorities. it would take many years and intense infight and most likely repeated heavy defeats for D to change. For R, it could be easier to change since Trump has shown them how to win.
This kind of fact-free opinion doesn’t advance the discussion very much.
Specifically, the U.S. added 19 million new legal permanent residents between 1992 and 2012, of which 2.7 million – or just 14 percent – were made under the 1986 act.
2.7M got green cards from Reagan amnesty, and not of them Latinos. Assuming they all became citizens in the 90s, which is an unreasonably high estimate, very few of these newly minted citizens voted. Voter participation is very low for low income people, and most of these 2.7 were low income.
But the anti-immigration campaign of 1994 changed that in California. I suspect the same will now happen all over the country.
Then what’s the major routes from Latinos to get green cards? California has the highest number of L population and L voters. That analysis is for the whole country, and it was about ““Ronald Reagan’s signature on the 1986 amnesty act brought about Barack Obama’s election,””. We are not talking about Obama, we talked about Calfornia after 1994
I don’t know what you mean. California used to be part of Mexico. USA took it from them. Generations of Mexicans were already here before any of our ancestors set foot here.
I do not understand what you are talking about, totally lost. Latino used to be a much smaller percentage of CA, now it’s the biggest
“In 1970, the 2.4 million Latinos in California accounted for 12% of the population, while the 15.5 million whites in the state made up more than three-quarters of residents, according to state figures. By 1990, the Latino population jumped to 7.7 million, or about 25% of the state’s population.Jul 8, 2015”
They have more babies, and more came thru legal immigration. Our immigration policy tilts towards family reunification.
The Reagan amnesty only gave legal status to 2.7M people nationwide, and not of them Latino. So the following statement of yours is not factual:
you guys are all wrong . USA belongs to china from history standpoint
http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_9346082_1.html
Please allow chairman Xi to rule this land again.
He will. Give him some time.
Ancestors are the past. Anyway, the voting pattern of L and B are now more or less fixed. No matter how much D/R does, there will be very little movement. The ones on the fence are W and A. There are many more independent As and significant independent Ws. D has been gaining on L, B and A for many years and it has done probably all it could do on this front. R now has nothing to lose on B and L. T has discovered Midwest W, but D’s grassroot response is endless attack and ridicules of Midwest Ws.
A constant votes means loyalty, but also means lack of attention. The variable is the deciding factor and is what it counts
That’s a good one. Anyhoo, according to American anthropologists (correct?), native Indians are yellow skin like Chinese… they somehow drift to America and after isolation for centuries become different… so sad, no horses and no domestications of animals… leading to slower development and eventual annihilation by the Europeans.
If Republicans can hold on to the Midwest W, the Electoral College system will allow Republicans to rule USA for many decades. They should take this opportunity to get rid of … just guessing what T has in mind… and why many Rs are supporting him quietly.
Boo hoo for him. Capitalizing the gains from cheap labor and socializing the costs.
BTW - when JFK ended the Bracero program jobs were created for Americans. But not as pickers.Tomato harvesting was one of the earlier agricultural tasks to be automated so the jobs were for machinists and engineers (this was already in the early 60’s). You don’t need people to harvest tomatoes. A few crops like apricots are still hand-picked. Look for crops like almonds to replace them as the drought ends.
There’s another trend at work. CA Democrat’s obsession with forcing all the Republicans to leave the state. This will increase the electoral votes and Congressional Representatives in red states.
Even wine grapes are picked by machine. …Farm products that need hand work will disappear or be imported.
Like Apple, Facebook, Google?
OK
