AHC: Republicans advocate pro-family immigration policy circa 2008?

And I deliberatively leave this vague where it can happen either before or after the 2008 elections.

And I have heard several Republican strategists say that Hispanic voters tend to be more conservative and should be a natural part of the Republican base. Not so sure about that, but certainly can be appealed to in a respectful way as can any voters. And to the extent both Republicans and Democrats contend over who can do a better job rebuilding the middle class, that's where politics becomes healthy.

Alright, so how might all this play out?
 
By "pro-family", do you mean in favour of greater admittance of entire families(as, for example, through family sponsorship), OR admitting more immigrants who are positively disposed to the GOP's social-conservative "family values" agenda? Or something else?

I've only casually followed the debate around Republicans' attracting more hispanic votes, but the impresion I've gotten is that whatever outreach has taken place has not borne much fruit.

Granted, this was from a borderline white-supremacist, anti-immigration site that had an interest in discouraging a conservative alliance with immigrants. But, even with that caveat, I'd still wager that the GOP's embrace of the Southern Strategy and Willie Horton-style campaign tactics has convinced a large swathe of the non-white population, not just African-Americans, that the party doesn't really like them.
 
Here's a July 2014 article from The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...g-for-a-new-way-to-win-over-hispanics/449079/

But Republicans are quietly testing out an alternative approach in their attempts to close the racial divide: focusing on pocketbook issues that disproportionately affect first- and second-generation Hispanic families. Call it the Rubio plan, since the Florida senator has been spending the last year test-driving a potential presidential campaign message centered on economic mobility, college affordability, tackling poverty, and middle-class economic challenges.
 
And by pro-family, I mean policies which benefit families in practical, tangible terms.

So, the Republican Party puts together something on immigration other than simply making 'amnesty' a dirty word.

And to their opposition to legal abortion, if they also advocated for improved access to pre-natal care, childhood nutrition, expanded child health care, might appeal to more moderates and independents.

And on taxes, not just the tax rates, but the complexity which people object to more than commonly thought. And same for regulation. Might take a page from the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

Question: Why does social conservatism typically join with pro-rich economic policies, and are there modern economies right now where that's not the case?
 
Reagan in 1986

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

.
.
. . . This time, however, Republicans know better than to tread near the politically toxic A-word.

Part of this aversion is due to what is widely seen as the failure of Reagan's 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. However, one of the lead authors of the bill says that unlike most immigration reform efforts of the past 20 years, amnesty wasn't the pitfall.

"We used the word 'legalization,' " former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson tells NPR's Guy Raz. "And everybody fell asleep lightly for a while, and we were able to do legalization."

The law granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, yet was largely considered unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage.

Simpson says the amnesty provision actually saved the act from being a total loss. "It's not perfect, but 2.9 million people came forward. If you can bring one person out of an exploited relationship, that's good enough for me."
So, the problem was that it didn't have enough sanctions for the companies hiring the undocumented workers, interesting.
 
The big problem is that the Republican base wouldn't allow it. Consider that Rubio had to flip-flop on immigration almost immediately after he made motions in that direction, even in those days (much less now, in the Age of Trump).

The Republican Party has and had deep internal fissures over immigration, and bringing them to the fore will just make those worse and alienate the voters they need.
 
I say that's why you have to put together a package, such as: 'you have to start paying taxes and show your income with either a W-2 or a 1099. You or your spouse have to show a lease and rent receipts . . . ' this is to counter the argument that a lot of low income persons don't make enough to pay hefty dollars of federal income tax, but by paying rent they certainly indirectly pay on property taxes. These are my ideas, don't know if they'd be enough.

And then I'll say, a Reagan Democrat or other swing voter is worth two members of the base who stay home.
 
Top