June 23, 2005

NATIVISTS VS REPUBLICANS:

Are Latinos the next Christian right? (Earl de Berge, 6/22/05, Arizona Republic)

mong Arizona Latinos under 25 years of age the Catholic preference falls to 54 percent while those who call themselves Christians rises to 24 and another 22 percent say they identify with no organized religion.

Another interesting fact is that Latinos in Arizona who have moved away from the Catholic religion also have a significantly greater proclivity to choose the GOP for their party affiliation.

It is perhaps ironic that while Democrats are the most likely to defend the benefits of open borders and lenient immigration policies and Republicans the most likely to oppose both, it is the Republican Party which may benefit most in the end, as the emerging Latino middle class gravitates more toward Christian sects and the GOP.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 23, 2005 4:24 PM
Comments

It gets harder and harder to avoid the conclusion that the Democrats are being maheuvered into oblivion. There they go again, attacking Republicans as the Christian party while the fasted growing body of voters are--Christians.

Posted by: Lou Gots at June 23, 2005 5:25 PM

Unfortunately, economics trumps religion when it comes time to vote among latinos. As long as we continue to admit millions of unskilled, low-wage immigrants to compete for jobs with the millions of unskilled, low-wage immigrants that are already here, wages will continue to stagnate and latinos will vote for the party that gives them the most goodies.

Posted by: G Eugene at June 23, 2005 5:59 PM

Unfortunately, economics trumps religion when it comes time to vote among latinos. As long as we continue to admit millions of unskilled, low-wage immigrants to compete for jobs with the millions of unskilled, low-wage immigrants that are already here, wages will continue to stagnate and latinos will vote for the party that gives them the most goodies.

Posted by: G Eugene at June 23, 2005 5:59 PM

Another interesting fact is that Latinos in Arizona who have moved away from the Catholic religion also have a significantly greater proclivity to choose the GOP for their party affiliation.

How is a loyal Republican Catholic supposed to respond to news like this? :-)

Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 23, 2005 6:05 PM

A party has to be in power before it can dispense the goodies. The GOP in Texas has shown itself to be quite effective in winning Hispanic votes up and down the ticket by offering Hispanic candidates and by acknowledging specific Hispanic concerns.

Latino immigrants to America have no interest in lolling about going on welfare like American Blacks do. And their movement into the American mainstream tracks that of Italians, a similar group of low-skill, superstitious immigrants 80 years earlier.

Posted by: bart at June 23, 2005 6:09 PM

Matt,

Conversion to Evangelical Christianity is an indicator of assimilation into the American mainstream. Perhaps, one can view it as an impetus for the Catholic Church in America to dispense with the socialist and corporatist claptrap and perhaps emulate evangelicals to the extent possible, but still consistent with Catholic doctrine. I don't have a clue as how this can be done but I'm sure some clever Catholic media expert can figure it out.

The growth of Hasidic sects among Jews in America is a precisely parallel development.

Posted by: bart at June 23, 2005 6:12 PM

bart:

To the contrary, that's all anyone is interested in--witness SS and MediCare.

Posted by: oj at June 23, 2005 6:52 PM

People paid into SS and Medicare, based upon promises made to them by the Federal Government, so they expect to get what they were promised. They altered their behavior based upon written promises made to them by the Federal Government. It is no different from paying into any insurance program, investment or annuity for a return down the road. Do I really have to bring you back to first year Contracts to explain to you how it is a wholly different matter from the human detritus that infests our welfare rolls.

It is insulting in the extreme to millions of elderly Americans for you to equate them with welfare recipients.

Posted by: bart at June 23, 2005 6:58 PM

It's a free lunch for the middle class. Everyone wants one and uses political power to get one.

Posted by: oj at June 23, 2005 7:02 PM

OJ,

How is it a 'free lunch' if people pay to get it, and millions of recipients, like my parents, are still being taxed on what they get? It is their reward based upon their justifiable reliance upon the Federal government which took money from them based upon a set of promises. To the extent that the Federal Government fails to live up to those promises, it has engaged on a fraud against millions and millions of elderly Americans. If Merrill Lynch or Goldman Sachs engaged in the same fraud against Americans, pretty much all their management would be in jail, after the SEC conducted a full body cavity search for money to pay their obligations.

The rip-off of the elderly, begun in the Reagan Administration, is the most dispositive evidence of the essentially criminal nature of both parties in American government.

Comparing Social Security and Medicare to 'welfare' is an insult and a demonstration of nothing other than your own utter ignorance and your lack of compassion for the elderly. And you have the nerve to consider me 'heartless!'

Posted by: bart at June 23, 2005 7:11 PM

they paid a fraction of what they take down.

Posted by: oj at June 23, 2005 7:15 PM

And millions died without getting a penny. That's why they hire actuaries. If the Feds engaged in poor analysis, that is their problem, not unlike if I screw up and my company ends up on the hook for a few millions. It becomes my company's problem and presumably my continued employment would be in jeopardy.

Posted by: bart at June 23, 2005 7:19 PM

Not one. It's set up so the old feed off the young at an ever higher rate. It's one reason we should accelerate citizenship, so young immigrants can help to cut off the voracious elders.

Posted by: oj at June 23, 2005 7:27 PM

G Eugene - Hispanics coming in are increasingly skilled, educated (25% have attended college), entrepreneurial, and highly motivated. Only 3% are agricultural workers. And 10 years after arrival, immigrant Hispanic households earn more than the average native household.

We can live with 10 years of voting Democratic if we end up with religious, entrepreneurial, family-oriented Republicans.

Posted by: pj at June 23, 2005 8:59 PM

"immigrant Hispanic households earn more than the average native household" (after 10 yrs)

Not accurate statement if you are referring to illegal "Mexican" immigrants. Why do we jump back and forth between Mexican and Hispanic as if they were the same? G. Eugene's statement is accurate.

By the way 3% in agriculture is not surprising since the only continueing shortage of such workers is in the area of produce (vegetable, fruit etc). Products easily grown in Mexico and transported to the US. Also do you count meat-packing plants as non-agricultural? Both industries would be conducive to "contract workers" imported for set periods of time.

Posted by: h-man at June 24, 2005 8:02 AM

were they as docile as natives

Posted by: oj at June 24, 2005 8:15 AM

h-man,

A very large percentage of the Hispanics coming to America are not Mexican. In any given day around NYC, it is easy to meet Uruguayans, Brazilians, Venezuelans and others who have some education, and hold upper-level clerical and service jobs or lower management positions.

The important question is what happens to the children of illegals raised in the US, a not insignificant population. If they continue to be clustered at the lower end of the social scale, that is a serious, long-term problem because there are lots of them and they have a high birth rate. If they are rapidly assimilating into the American mainstream, viz. Italian immigrants circa 1920, they are not a real issue.

Intermarriage data would indicate that Hispanics merge into the overall American community at a significantly higher rate than Blacks and a slightly smaller one than Asians.

Posted by: bart at June 24, 2005 9:09 AM
« WHY NOT BOTH?: | Main | HANDING HIM THE BULLHORN: »