Illegal entry appears to be a criminal violation according to the statute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

It was a crime, (not a civil violation) when I was doing border security...

bbauska wrote:It was a crime, (not a civil violation) when I was doing border security...

Well, all right then.

Not that it matters. The voters overwhelmingly want the situation resolved; politicians overwhelmingly don't want to resolve it.

It's good to see the Trump campaign implode so quickly. For Republicans to win they have to define the party as economic freedom, economic opportunity, foreign policy strength and realism, individual initiative and the importance of moral values.

If the party allows itself to be defined as anti-homosexual, anti-immigrant, anti-science, anti poor people, pro war, and out of touch, it will lose for a long time. Whether Trump is more of a Republican or Democrat doesn't matter. He is a demagogue; but he was running as a Republican so he was defining the brand at its own expense.

In other words, did the Republican Party absorb southern whites who used to be Democrats after 1968...or did the South absorb the Republican Party?

Ray Jay wrote:It's good to see the Trump campaign implode so quickly. For Republicans to win they have to define the party as economic freedom, economic opportunity, foreign policy strength and realism, individual initiative and the importance of moral values.

If the party allows itself to be defined as anti-homosexual, anti-immigrant, anti-science, anti poor people, pro war, and out of touch, it will lose for a long time. Whether Trump is more of a Republican or Democrat doesn't matter. He is a demagogue; but he was running as a Republican so he was defining the brand at its own expense.

He's still running isn't he?

ray

It's good to see the Trump campaign implode so quickly

Has it imploded? As of Fridays Fox Poll he was ahead with 18 percent support.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3823.html

If you're expecting his numbers to go down because of his comments about McCain .... maybe. Maybe not. I have a feeling he can count on a fifth to a quarter to accept the way he reasons and projects.

freeman3 wrote:In other words, did the Republican Party absorb southern whites who used to be Democrats after 1968...or did the South absorb the Republican Party?

Neither one. The southern states were still pretty solidly democratic at the state and local level until the late '90's, early aughts.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mor ... 94542.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 07084.html (table 1 in this article shows the percentage of Republicans in the State Legislatures)

We're talking national elections here. In any case, I strongly suspect that you will see increasing Republican registrations in the South from about 1964 or so (it took a while for the transformation to to take place but it started around then). You can see that since 1964 Southern states have opted for the Republican presidential candidate most of the time.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South

And according to this data it looks like now (whenever it started but a review of history reveals conclusively it started in the 60's because of antipathy to civil rights among southern whites no matter how much Southern/Republican apologists from the New Standard try to spin it) yes the South has absorbed the Republican Party. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/up ... rrer=&_r=0

freeman3 wrote:We're talking national elections here. In any case, I strongly suspect that you will see increasing Republican registrations in the South from about 1964 or so (it took a while for the transformation to to take place but it started around then). You can see that since 1964 Southern states have opted for the Republican presidential candidate most of the time.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South

And according to this data it looks like now (whenever it started but a review of history reveals conclusively it started in the 60's because of antipathy to civil rights among southern whites no matter how much Southern/Republican apologists from the New Standard try to spin it) yes the South has absorbed the Republican Party. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/up ... rrer=&_r=0

Read the articles that I linked to. They include the specific numbers going back to the 1930's.

Further, if southerners are voting for Republicans because they are racists, why are they still voting for Democrats on the local level?

From 1962-1972:

Florida--percentage of Republican representatives went from 10 percent to 35 percent
Georgia-- 2.3 to 14.89
North Carolina--13 to 31%
Tennessee--20-46%
Texas--3.80 to 10.5%
Virginia--5 to 19%
South Carolina 0 to 14%

Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana had little change, but that's 6 states where there was already a clear switch to the Republican Party. And the reason that the Republican Party had been so weak down there was because it was the party of Lincoln. Is it just a coincidence that we see the start of a major switch to the Republican Party in the 1960s--the time of the civil rights movement? Well, of course not

I was not thinking about race in particular when I made my statement . RJ listed things the Republican Party needed to move away from and to me these issues are largely being driven by Republicans from the South and it is going to be difficult for the party to reform because it is now so dependent on the Southern white voter.

rickyp

If you're expecting his numbers to go down because of his comments about McCain .... maybe. Maybe not. I have a feeling he can count on a fifth to a quarter to accept the way he reasons and projects

In the ABC Poll released today he's at 24% and leading all republican candidates. If his core is "nativists", he may not be damaged by his comments about Mccain. McCain was already anathema to that core...

From the Poll:

NATIVISTS – There’s a nativist element to Trump’s support: He’s backed by 38 percent of
Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who feel that immigrants, overall, mainly weaken
U.S. society. That drops to 12 percent among those who say immigrants strengthen this country.
Another, related result underscores a disconnect for Trump with the public overall, one that may
pose a challenge for him in the future. Seventy-four percent of Americans see undocumented
immigrants from Mexico as “mainly honest people trying to get ahead” as opposed to “mainly
undesirable people like criminals.” Trump, again controversially, has said such immigrants
include drug dealers and rapists, while “some, I assume, are good people.

”

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conten ... litics.pdf

Mostly this demonstrates the weakness in picking a national candidate through a series of minor regional primaries. Especially when the primaries are on no way reflective of the nation's attitudes as a whole. The extreme views that are more acceptable in places like Iowa promote candidates to express views (whether they actually believe them is another matter) that are not held in most of the nation.
You end up branding the party and the eventual candidate with those extreme views. And the eventual candidate cannot easily pivot away from the position with credibility.
And of course, there is a core of the party that holds those views .... meaning the branding does have validity.
You guys arguing about the historical accuracy of the Southern strategy ...this is the outcome.
The southern strategy and the acquisition of the racist South (a slowly dying breed today) is a historical fact though Archduke.The strategist wrote long books about this ...Harry Dent is a key architect...

Thurmond switched to the Republican Party in 1964 at the urging of Mr. Dent. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater lost badly that year, but carried five Southern states by appealing to states' rights in opposition to civil rights.

Building on that trend, Mr. Dent began creating the Southern strategy that took Nixon to victory and that provided the conservative foundation for the Republican victories in the 1980s and 1990s.

Mr. Dent became head of the South Carolina Republican Party, and began a voter registration drive among whites. He stoked fears that the federal government would take over the state's public schools.

By 1968, he told Nixon that he needed the Southerners to win. According to a transcript of Nixon's meeting with the regional party leaders, Nixon promised to be a law-and-order president and said that he would appoint "strict constructionists" as federal judges. Mr. Dent made Nixon aware that Southern politicians were suspicious of his support for civil rights, so Nixon said he would allow local school officials to carry out their own desegregation plans.

The Southerners supported Nixon, and Mr. Dent was rewarded with a job in the Nixon campaign. After the 1968 victory, he was named to Nixon's transition staff and later became special White House counsel to the president.

,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02225.html

Arguing that it wasn't what is was, is a lot like arguing that the real reason for the civil war was something called states rights. You have to bend yourself into logic pretzels to avoid the facts.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Further, if southerners are voting for Republicans because they are racists, why are they still voting for Democrats on the local level?

Theory:

Perhaps the state and local Democrats were more likely to pander to them than the national level were.

It is not simply "racism" but it is resistance to change. The entrenched Dem state and local establishments in the South were less into promoting social change than were the northern and West coast liberals of the party were. And yes, the party of Lincoln and Reconstruction had a lot to do to win solid support across all levels of election.

Ricky:

If you're expecting his numbers to go down because of his comments about McCain .... maybe. Maybe not. I have a feeling he can count on a fifth to a quarter to accept the way he reasons and projects

In the ABC Poll released today he's at 24% and leading all republican candidates. If his core is "nativists", he may not be damaged by his comments about Mccain. McCain was already anathema to that core...

From the Poll:

NATIVISTS – There’s a nativist element to Trump’s support: He’s backed by 38 percent of
Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who feel that immigrants, overall, mainly weaken
U.S. society. That drops to 12 percent among those who say immigrants strengthen this country.
Another, related result underscores a disconnect for Trump with the public overall, one that may
pose a challenge for him in the future. Seventy-four percent of Americans see undocumented
immigrants from Mexico as “mainly honest people trying to get ahead” as opposed to “mainly
undesirable people like criminals.” Trump, again controversially, has said such immigrants
include drug dealers and rapists, while “some, I assume, are good people.
”

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conten ... litics.pdf

You realize that the poll was mostly conducted before Trump's gaffe, yet you offer it as part of your argument that his comments about McCain will not implode his campaign. You do realize that the date a poll is released is different than the date a poll is taken, right?

Trump has already insulted Hispanics and POWs. It's just a matter of time until he insults some other group such as women, gays, blacks, Jews, Asians, Catholics, or bald people. He'll be done before we have the Redscape games Round 4.

Not sure you want to tie Trump being done to Redscapes 4 starting...