Thread: Bipartisan Effort to Draft Immigration Bill

noyoucannot wrote:

It seems that these politicians are willing to alienate the vast majority of Americans who are against amnesty in order to placate a small minority that does favor it. Where am I going wrong in my thinking?

You're failing to consider corporate America and the media into your thinking. J

Without corporate support, politicans have a difficult time finding the money they need to run successful campaigns. No advertising funds + no media support (or negative support) = little or no visibility. Furthermore, the media has killed many a promising political career (some deserved, some probably not). Human nature makes many Americans a forgiving lot. In other words, many people want to see the best in people. So, with some positive advertising and media support - past mistakes can be forgiven, covered up, and forgotten. All in all, Americans seem to have a short term memory when it comes to politicians. How else can Sen. Kennedy and President Clinton's success be explained?

Blast em with phone calls.


617.565.3170 Kennedy Mass office in boston
602.952.2410 McCain office in Phoenix
480.833.0092 Flake office in Tempe
773.384.1655 Gutierrez office in Chicago

i have just finished making phone calls to all these numbers and oice my opinion

Originally Posted by MW

noyoucannot wrote:

It seems that these politicians are willing to alienate the vast majority of Americans who are against amnesty in order to placate a small minority that does favor it. Where am I going wrong in my thinking?

You're failing to consider corporate America and the media into your thinking. J

Without corporate support, politicans have a difficult time finding the money they need to run successful campaigns. No advertising funds + no media support (or negative support) = little or no visibility. Furthermore, the media has killed many a promising political career (some deserved, some probably not). Human nature makes many Americans a forgiving lot. In other words, many people want to see the best in people. So, with some positive advertising and media support - past mistakes can be forgiven, covered up, and forgotten. All in all, Americans seem to have a short term memory when it comes to politicians. How else can Sen. Kennedy and President Clinton's success be explained?

Yes, you're right--I did fail to take that into consideration! I don't know how I forgot that very significant detail! Thanks for pointing it out to me. That part makes perfect sense, but I still think they are making more over this great "Hispanic voting block" than is reality. A large percentage of Americans of Hispanic descent are not pro-illegal. The media makes it sound like all of these pro-enforcement politicians lost because of their firm stand against amnesty. They are indicating that Republicans feel that their candidates lost because of their strong anti-illegal positions. If that is indeed the case, how come no Democratic candidates ran on a platform of amnesty?? The corporate pressure on politicians I will buy, but the effect of the voting power of the pro-amnesty Hispanics I am not so sure of. The vast majority of Americans are not in favor of amnesty, but there are other issues besides illegal immigration that they vote on, particularly in areas where illegal immigration is not a huge factor.

Originally Posted by noyoucannot

I'm still not understanding this: if over 80% of the American people want the borders secured and do not want amnesty for illegals, why are the "Hispanic voters" such an important constituency? Even among Hispanic voters, at least half of them do not support amnesty. So, that leaves just a fraction that is supportive of amnesty against the vast majority that is not. It seems that these politicians are willing to alienate the vast majority of Americans who are against amnesty in order to placate a small minority that does favor it. Where am I going wrong in my thinking?

If they do give the 20 million or so illegals amnesty, and they are then able to bring in all their relatives, then at some point in the future they might be a significant force. But, do they have that much political power at the present time?

And I don't know what the Republicans are thinking if they believe that millions of people who are uneducated and poor and come from a Socialist mindset are going to have some kind of epiphany and vote Republican? Why would people who benefit from government entitlements and programs vote for a party which favors lower taxes and smaller government? This just doesn't make any sense to me.

It comes down to future votes. The single largest demographic shift we are going to see over the next 3 or 4 decades is to hispanics. Even the most conservative estimates indicate the United States will be a hispanic nation by the year 2050. A few of the more liberal estimates indicate it will happen far before that. So for either political party, republican or democrat, to maintain control of it's political power in Washington they need more and more hispanic voters to support them in every single election. And that is not to gain power, more and more hispanic voters are needed in every election just to maintain power. What it comes down to is this. The party that loses the hispanic vote loses on election day. Bush knows this, the RNC and DNC know this, and congressmen and senators themselves know this. Which is why the 700 mile fence will never be built, and we will see Bush's Illegal Alien Amnesty Program passed. He won't call it that because he knows it's a bitter pill for his followers and supporters to swallow, but that's exactly what it is. You see Bush and the rest of them in Washington understand this one fact. The time to stop illegal aliens was a generation ago when Reagan was president. We should have built a 2000 mile wall then and forced strict workplace compliance. But we didn't so the children of Reagan's Amnesty are now voting, and the power is shifting to democrats because of it. And soon the children of illegals today will be voting tomorrow.

And corporate america will sell us out every time. They will always support the policy that's best for themselves and not really care about whether or not the policy is good for america itself. And hiring illegals gives them the cheapest labor possible. Why should they hire americans and pay benefits when they can cut payroll and benefit expences by 40 to 50% by hiring illegals? Corporate america knows illegal labor is good for the economy. What businessman wouldn't want to show a larger profit by cutting labor expenses? Sure the economy expands and taxes will go up because illegals soak up government benefits. They also know the current workplace raids are only a temporary situation that will soon disappear as Bush's Illegal Alien Amnesty Program gets support in Congress and becomes law. Corporate america knows policticans in Washington don't represent american citizens, politicians almost always will represent the money that gets them re-elected. Which means corporate money. So the more that illegals that come over here the more money corporate america makes. The more money corporate america makes, the more taxes they pay the government. The more taxes that the government gets means they are happy because government expands. Why do they care if it's the american citizen that's getting shafted?