Share This Page

Obama reaps what Dems sowed decades ago

| Saturday, Nov. 24, 2012, 8:57 p.m.

Few knew it then, but two major laws created more than 40 years ago - the 1965 Immigration Act and the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18 - have changed our political demographics and electoral politics forever, tipping millions into the Democratic Party's cynical arms.

Media campaigns for these laws were led by aggressive liberals hiding their agenda - to draw new groups who might be ripe for exploitation and manipulation to the Democrats. Sen. Ted Kennedy was their point man. With passage, voting America changed gradually and inexorably and the stage was set for 2008's election to the presidency of inexperienced Barack Obama, who had broad appeal to young and foreign-born voters.

Those laws made possible his re-election after four disastrous years, giving the middle finger to common sense and good judgment. Democrat leaders always believed millions of new Americans from Africa and Latin America, many unskilled and poorly educated, could be exploited through immediate government assistance.

My friend Ann Coulter said, anent Obama's re-election, that Democrats haven't changed anyone's mind; they changed the people. "The country would become poorer and less free," she wrote, "but Democrats would have an unbeatable majority!"

In 1965, signing the immigration bill, President Johnson told a whopper: "This bill we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives."

The Center for Immigration Studies explains that under the old system, admission depended largely upon an immigrant's country of birth; 70 percent of slots went to natives of just the U.K., Ireland and Germany, generally reflecting the existing U.S. makeup. Smaller numbers were available to people in Italy, Greece, Poland and elsewhere in eastern and southern Europe.

Despite high-blown rhetoric, Congress saw the act as primarily symbolic. The public was generally opposed to immigration tinkering and a majority was against the act. Its liberal proponents strongly denied it would lead to a huge, sustained increase in - and be a vehicle for "globalizing"- immigration.

Kennedy, then Senate immigration subcommittee chairman, offered assurances that the act would not change the country's ethnic mix, immigration patterns and standards, or cost U.S. workers their jobs.

Since 1968, 85 percent of legal immigrants have come from what liberals call "developing countries."

More whites voted this year for Mitt Romney than voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. But then, as Coulter points out, whites were 88 percent of the electorate; this year, 72 percent.

Her point? "If you come to America and immediately go on welfare, by definition, you are not a desirable immigrant. Except as a voter for the Democratic Party."

Kennedy, "lion of the Senate," must be high-fiving his own paws as he spins in his richly appointed crypt.

Richard W. Carlson, a former U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles and former director of the Voice of America, is vice chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.