2006 Chicago Immigration Rally Outdrew All the Tea Parties

Here is a dose of reality for Republicans. As Geraldo Rivera pointed out last night on FNC’s Hannity the 2006 Great American Boycott drew more people in Chicago, than the entire Tea Party movement did across the country. 400,000 people attended the 2006 Chicago rally compared to roughly 200,000 for tea parties around the country.

Here is Geraldo Rivera making the point on last night’s Hannity show courtesy of Media Matters:

Rivera put the number for the 2006 Chicago rally at between 300,000-500,000, which is right on because other news estimates placed the number at 400,000. Consider that this was just in Chicago Around the country, 2,500 people turned out in Atlanta, 20,000 in Indianapolis, 10,000 in Las Vegas, 3,000-5,000 in Madison, WI, 70,000 in Milwaukee, 200,000 in New York City, and 1-2 million in Los Angeles. It is no coincidence that Democrats took back Congress in 2006, and Barack Obama won the White House in 2008 with help from the Republican Party’s anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Hispanic voters have left the Republican Party in droves. Instead of learning from their mistake, and coming up with a sensible immigration policy that would lure Hispanics back to the GOP, they instead appealed to their base by holding staged protests. The Great American Boycott didn’t have a cable news network promoting. It had people who cared about an issue. For those critics who claim that the marchers were all illegal immigrants, once again look at the returns from the past two elections, and notice how Hispanic voters have fled away from the GOP.

The tea parties were another sign that the Republican Party is still on the wrong track. They have to move more to the middle, not further to the right, if they want to win national elections. When the tea parties are compared to a popular protest, it becomes clear what a failure they were. The tea parties mobilized likeminded people. They didn’t reveal any base of popular support that would pressure lawmakers. You know that you have failed when Geraldo Rivera becomes the voice of reason on an issue.

2 Replies to “2006 Chicago Immigration Rally Outdrew All the Tea Parties”

  1. Liberals/Socialists: This will make you happy.

    Was talking to my next-door neighbor, a housing contractor and framer by trade, and my son-in-law, a painter by trade.

    It has become very difficult for them to find work. Contractors are hiring illegal immigrants to do their work and underbidding contractors who hire ‘productive’ citizens or legal immigrants. These contractors pocket most of the money and pay the rest to the illegals. These illegals live 10 -20 in an apartment and send most of the money to their legal countries.

    Not only are small businessmen, ‘who Barack ‘Teleprompter’ Obama hates, losing business, billions which should be spent in this country are being sent to foreign lands.

    Liberals/Socialist are winning the the war against small business and the incorporation of illegals into the country. It is immoral and unethical, but who are Liberals/Socialist to worry about such trivia.

  2. Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. Immigration, both legal and illegal, are fueling this growth. I’m not talking about environmental degradation or resource depletion. I’m talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.

    I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

    This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management, especially immigration policy. Our policies of encouraging high rates of immigration are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.

    But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.

    The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries – India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China – as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050. It’s absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized, and that’s impossible without dramatically reining in immigration, both legal and illegal.

    If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It’s also available at Amazon.com.)

    Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph. I just don’t know how else to inject this new perspective into the immigration debate without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.

    Pete Murphy
    Author, “Five Short Blasts”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.