Wall Street Journal still agitating for GOP immigration surrender

posted at 1:59 pm on August 22, 2007 by Bryan

Before getting into the WSJ editorial published today, let’s look at a recent poll. It’s a Rasmussen poll, published Aug 12, 2007.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of American adults favor a proposal requiring employers to fire workers who falsify identity documents. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 9% are opposed while 12% are not sure.

The survey was conducted as the Bush Administration announced a series of proposals designed to crack down on illegal immigration. One proposal would require companies to fire workers if proper documents are not provided by the employee within 90 days. While this proposal has upset some immigrant-rights leaders, most Americans would like to go even further—74% believe that if a person wants to rent an apartment they should be required to provide documents proving they are in the country legally. Just 17% are opposed.

Seventy-nine percent support is indicative to anyone but the stone blind that a broad swath of the US public supports enforcing immigration law. The poll is similarly cheery for the pro-enforcement side, which includes the vast majority of Republicans.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans believe it is Very Important to improve border enforcement and reduce illegal immigration. That view is held by 80% of Republicans, 62% of Democrats, and 64% of those not affiliated with either major political party. Those figures are little changed from earlier in the year.

How, then, can a political party that is beginning to coalesce around stronger enforcement, and two of the top three of whose presidential candidates are trying to out-enforcement each other on the campaign trail, possibly be “melting down” over immigration enforcement?

That’s how the smear-happy, paranoid and out-of-touch editorialists at the Wall Street Journal see things. It’s right there in their headline.

GOP Immigration Meltdown

The sub-head takes a whack at Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani for their recent back-and-forth over the issue. The Journal says that the two are just angling for the “Lou Dobbs chair.” Perhaps, though, seeing as they’re hoping to get elected President of the United States and doing do requires support from at least a plurality of the voters, they’re trying to get on the winning side of a major issue by articulating positions that the public actually supports to the tune of about 4 in 5 voters. Hmm…which is more likely to be true, I wonder.

The rest of the editorial is similarly nutty. It attempts to piggyback on Giuliani’s ridiculous assertion that his allowing NYC to become a sanctuary city helped lead to the drop in the city’s crime rate (the “broken windows” enforcement used to get the credit for that), mocks ICE raids from the point of view that since they haven’t found a jihadi fruit-picker yet they must be useless, and once again threatens that you’ll end up paying more for your lettuce if the feds really enforce immigration law. This section bears a little closer inspection, though.

Under the new rules, scheduled to take effect next month, businesses with workers whose Social Security numbers don’t match their names could face criminal charges and heftier fines. It’s hard to understand the rationale of a policy that holds employers responsible for the inability of the federal government to produce secure Social Security numbers.

This isn’t actually all that difficult to implement. Most businesses don’t hire new employees every single day, so presumably they won’t find themselves buried in SSN checks on a constant basis. We have a national system for checking gun purchasers’ backgrounds at the point of sale, and that system is instantaneous: The clerk punches in the information, and back comes the sale or no sale information in seconds. It’s not perfect, thanks largely to variations in state laws governing who can and can’t purchase firearms and to fraud, but it works very well most of the time. Why can’t we do the same thing with Social Security Numbers, which among other things are used to access billions of dollars in federal benefits and can be used to steal innocent peoples’ identities? Those numbers ought to be secure; the nation’s porous borders actually contribute mightily to their insecurity, and the WSJ contributes its own weight on the side of that insecurity.

And if we actually secure the border, such checks will become less and less necessary over time. That’s also something that the WSJ editorialists don’t want to happen.

But hey, don’t blame them. They may not be looking out for your security, but they’re sure enough looking out for your salad.

Getting back to the WSJ’s theme, there is a meltdown underway, and it’s on the amnesty side of the argument. When you have to resort to comparing repeat offenders to runaway slaves (a formulation that makes Mexico, hilariously, the slave master), your side is the one that’s melting down. And your side is melting down because nearly 4 out of 5 Americans are on the other side, and they’re right. Contrary to what the WSJ thinks, immigration enforcement is a winning issue for the GOP.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

One can only hope that when Murdoch closes the deal and takes permanent possession, that these incompetent assclowns at the WSJ will be terminated.

georgej on August 22, 2007 at 2:10 PM

The W$J represents plantation owner interests that want cheap labor and the cheaper the better. In their heart of hearts they would probably like to have slavery back, but Lincoln, Grant and Sherman kind of put a stop to that, so they advocated for “guest” serfs, aka slavery light.

Abraham Lincoln weeps. William Tecumseh Sherman should come back from the dead and burn their offices to the ground.

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 2:14 PM

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Mmmm, sometime even a stopped clock is right. This time you are.

doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 2:19 PM

I’m convinced that immigration enforcement can be the winning issue for Republicans in ’08. Not just for the White House, but Congress as well. If they play this issue correctly they could take back both houses.

jaime on August 22, 2007 at 2:20 PM

The WSJ wants the US to look demographically like Mexico, with its editors, of course, being in the White upper class.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 2:26 PM

We have a national system for checking gun purchasers’ backgrounds at the point of sale, and that system is instantaneous: The clerk punches in the information, and back comes the sale or no sale information in seconds.

Exactly. But they want to control that, for the same reason the feudal lords controlled crossbow ownership: it could potentially threaten their power.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Comparing the decrease in crime in NYC to illegal immigration in NYC is comparing apples to oranges. At my daughter’s school, most of these second generation kids (whose parents have a third grade education) end up in gangs or on the streets. You import poverty, you end up to be a poorer nation.

Mark
http://mark24609.blogspot.com/

“Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

David Geffen – Former Clinton supporter and Hollywood mogul

mark24609 on August 22, 2007 at 2:30 PM

The WSJ approaches this issue from only one direction: cheap labor.

If there’s an upside to the bursting of the housing bubble, it’ll likely limit some of the potential criticism of immigration enforcement from building contractors and subcontractors who probably need an excuse to trim back their workforce in any case.

JEM on August 22, 2007 at 2:32 PM

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Exactly. Have you ever seen a white illegal alien from Mexico? Of course not, they have it too good

Harpoon on August 22, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Funny someone once found the need to build a wall on Wall Street. Probably to keep out poor folks. Now when we all would like a wall for our boarder, these same people say no. Because as MB4 stated, they are getting rich off it. Which in turn affords them the luxury of building walls around their mansions….nice!

soulsirkus on August 22, 2007 at 2:36 PM

At my daughter’s school, most of these second generation kids (whose parents have a third grade education) end up in gangs or on the streets. You import poverty, you end up to be a poorer nation.

Mexican-Americans have higher incarceration rates than their immigrant parents. It’s not that we’re importing poverty, it’s that we’re importing people that can’t compete academically and that have little upward mobility. That isn’t true of the Asian and European immigrants that come here who do better than us.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 2:37 PM

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 2:14 PM

If 2007 was 1860, no doubt the WSJ would support continued slavery. At that time the South claimed that abolition would destroy their economy. Same old same old.

infidel4life on August 22, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Here is my comment to the WSJ that was not picked as usual to be published:

Once again, the WSJ supports companies that hire Illegal Aliens with the rationalization that Companies should have an unlimited supply of cheap foreign labor.

It just amazes me this editorial board refuses to acknowledge the costs of illegal Immigration to our Country and downward spiral of wages on the American middle class. Tyson, Swift and Cargil have been hiring Illegals with impunity to boost their bottom lines. The wages in those plants have gone from $20 an hour to about $9 hour because of the illegal labor.

When will the WSJ realize this is not benefiting Americans that are losing their jobs by the millions to the slave labor that has to be subsidized by entitlement programs?

This is not a zero sum game.

Americans in the trades and other formally good paying jobs are being replaced by Illegal Aliens but that does not bother the WSJ editorial board.

ScottyDog on August 22, 2007 at 2:42 PM

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Mmmm, sometime even a stopped clock is right. This time you are.

doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 2:19 PM

My clock actually runs fast. It now reads November 5, 2008 8:00 AM PST.

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Did Kirsten write that edit?

rivlax on August 22, 2007 at 2:49 PM

If 2007 was 1860, no doubt the WSJ would support continued slavery. At that time the South claimed that abolition would destroy their economy. Same old same old.

infidel4life on August 22, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Ditto with the abolition/restriction of much of child labor in the early 1900′s. The W$J was probably against that too.

The W$J is a disgrace to America.

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Did Kirsten write that edit?

Who?

Allahpundit on August 22, 2007 at 2:49 PM

I know what I believe and I know what I think but I try to keep an open mind about this stuff. When a paper like the WSJ is so committed to a stance on an issue and that stance is opposite my own, I wonder, do they know something I don’t know? It makes me curious. Do they know something about our economy that I have yet to discover? Do they know something about the inner workings of the CIA/FBI/ICE etc that I’m unaware of? Do they know something about the need for open borders that I have not read about? Do they know something about our future demographics and population trends that I’m currently ignorant about? I’m anxious to hear a good argument that challenges my beliefs. But then I go ahead and read the incredibly idiotic, morally bankrupt, illogical, ridiculous, stupid, nonsensical, intellectual garbarge that actually finds its way onto the pages that they have laid out with the intent to change my mind on the subject. I read it once. I rub my eyes and then read it a second time. Now I realize that their only accomplishment was to insult me and annoy me with their stupidity. ENFORCE THE DAMN LAWS! Other then that I have no strong feelings on the matter.

Zetterson on August 22, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Like it or not, the government is really just waging ethnic cleansing on Americans by opening the borders. Both blacks and whites get displaced from their jobs and communities by these ‘newcomers’ who primarily identify with their own race and team up against the others. It’s especially true in Los Angeles, but pretty much universal throughout the country. There used to be plenty of white and black construction workers in California, now there’s almost none. Same for a lot of other professions. Time to start calling it what it is.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 2:54 PM

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Also the Mexican ruling elite, mostly of Spanish descent, is waging ethnic cleansing, aided and abetted by the W$J and a whole lot of other plantation owners and American politicians, by dumping their lower class on America.

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 3:10 PM

do they know something I don’t know?

They know that a lot of businesses have come to depend on illegals and that it would hurt businesses if their workers suddenly disappeared and/or got more expensive to pay new legal ones.

Then they decided to go all moonbatty and forget about supply and demand. The sky is falling, the economy will fail, lawns will go un-mowed, etc. etc. (Think of the children who could get lost in the weeds!)

Yeh, or maybe businesses will adapt, automate and charge more for lettuce.

MamaAJ on August 22, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Who?

Allahpundit on August 22, 2007 at 2:49 PM

HAR! Good one! No more baby steps.

jaime on August 22, 2007 at 3:18 PM

MamaAJ on August 22, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Yeah, and unfortunately the moonbattery disease has infected our president as well as the editorial writers at the WSJ. How is it that so many smart, educated, otherwise good people can not see the obvious flaws in their way of thinking? I just don’t get it.

Zetterson on August 22, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Spell myopia-W.S.J.

Define myopia-BP agent standing next to a speeder-I need to see his papers-WSJ Obie Wan-you don’t need to see his papers-BP agent I.don’t.need…uuuuh yea, I do need to see his papers, come with me kid.

Speakup on August 22, 2007 at 3:22 PM

“Funny someone once found the need to build a wall on Wall Street. Probably to keep out poor folks.”

Actually, you’re more correct than you think.

There really was a wall. Them “poor folks” were (in order of appearance), “savages,” “New England colonists,” the British,” and “more savages,” the city being then named New Amsterdam until the Brits took it over. The “wall” itself (a 12 foot high stockade of timber and dirt) was torn down in 1699.

georgej on August 22, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Who?

Allahpundit on August 22, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Guess he’s over her already!

Bad Candy on August 22, 2007 at 3:23 PM

do they know something I don’t know?

Zetterson on August 22, 2007 at 2:54 PM

They most certainly do.

They are visionaries at the W$J who are looking out for us all.

They know that our economy would fall apart if we did not have hard working Amigos from the south to pick our sacred lettuce, doing the job that lazy Americans would not even do for $50 an hour (HT: John McCain).

They also know, what apparently you do not, that lettuce is a wonder plant.

Someday soon a cure for cancer will be found from an extract from lettuce.

Someday soon highly fermented lettuce will power all our cars.

Someday soon lettuce reactor plants will provide all of our
electricity.

A derivative from lettuce may even hold the cure for old age!!!

And the thing is only hard working Amigos from the south
know how to pick lettuce in just the right and loving way to keep it from losing all of these magical properties.

Have you hugged a head of lettuce today?

Have you sent the W$J a nice card letting them know just how much you appreciate them?

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 3:28 PM

I can’t wait till we lose Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico in the next presidential election. I agree with enforcing the damn laws so to speak but the tone of the debate has become ridiculous and will alienate those Hispanic voters who agree with enforcing the laws but are turned off by our rhetoric when we stray from that message.

And just because the asshats for Atzlan and reconquistadors or whatever are never told to shut up by their side doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shut up people on our side of the debate who lose their damn minds.

The issue is that they’re illegal. Where the hell they come from is irrelevant, right? If we had rocket scientists illegally sneaking into the country, we would argue just as strongly for their deportation and against amnesty because they’re illegal. Otherwise, this is a debate about economic value and it’s just a spin on what the WSJ does but from the opposite angle.

I think we make a big mistake when we focus on the immigrant part as opposed to the illegal part. It steps completely on our message and plays directly into the hands of those who would like to paint this issue as veiled bigotry.

That’s my $0.02.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 3:35 PM

we’re importing people that can’t compete academically and that have little upward mobility

Nature or nurture? If you treat people like poor victims who couldn’t possibly learn English, they probably aren’t going to do as well as people who had to sink or swim.

Don’t get me started on the California schools and the condescending teachers and administrators who treat Mexicans as having less potential and think they are doing them a favor.

/descending from soapbox

MamaAJ on August 22, 2007 at 3:37 PM

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Without lettuce, my colon gets plugged up.

rockhauler on August 22, 2007 at 3:40 PM

They say that if you want to know what a woman will look like in a generation, look at her mother.

If the W$J gets it’s way guess what country America will look like in a generation.

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 3:41 PM

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Well OK then. Perhaps I will have to consider my evil stance on this subject of illegal immigration afterall. Me and you MB4, we must get this word out to everybody! I’ll start with all the fit young ladies who happen to have a family medical history of accute nymphomania. You can take all the rest.

Zetterson on August 22, 2007 at 3:42 PM

The issue is that they’re illegal. Where the hell they come from is irrelevant, right?

Not for me. I don’t want a bunch of Muslims moving here. We already having a bunch of Chinese coming here who have inherently higher IQs who are able to get a lot of the scientific jobs and spots in college. Ultimately, it does matter where they come from, and it did at the founding of the country as well.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 3:47 PM

Most businesses don’t hire new employees every single day, so presumably they won’t find themselves buried in SSN checks on a constant basis

True, but there are employers who hire large groups of employees on a SEASONAL or WAE (when actually employed) basis. However, even this practice should not be a huge problem. At the state agency where I worked, where we hired large numbers of seasonal employees for various things, we simply kept on the payroll all old employees (with zero hours worked), and called them back when they were needed. Some, of course, couldn’t or wouldn’t return, and then we would need to replace them. But we only had to verify employment status of a few people, not 300 at a time. So it can be done, and any argument that an employer wants to make that verification of employment status puts too huge a burden on them is just not true in most cases.

reine.de.tout on August 22, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Nature or nurture? If you treat people like poor victims who couldn’t possibly learn English, they probably aren’t going to do as well as people who had to sink or swim.

Don’t get me started on the California schools and the condescending teachers and administrators who treat Mexicans as having less potential and think they are doing them a favor.

/descending from soapbox

MamaAJ on August 22, 2007 at 3:37 PM

I’m not sure it matters. The point is, it is. Asians come here and have no trouble competing, learning, and have low illegitimacy rates. The opposite is true for Mexicans.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 3:49 PM

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 3:35 PM

I agree to a degree, though I do think that there are important elements about who it is we choose to bring in and who it is we choose not to bring in that we need to discuss. The multiculturalists have also stuck their heads into this debate and the foundation of their beliefs is that all cutures are equally valid. That is a lie. All cultures are not equally valid and they should not be treated as such. But perhaps you are correct. Perhaps strategically it is wiser to limit our arguments to stop the political bleeding. Everything will need to be adressed eventually though.

Zetterson on August 22, 2007 at 3:51 PM

This isn’t actually all that difficult to implement. Most businesses don’t hire new employees every single day, so presumably they won’t find themselves buried in SSN checks on a constant basis.

A system is in place, our HR person calls a hotline at SS and confirms that numbers match names on every applicant. Just takes a few moments. By the way, she has been known to confiscate the cards that are bogus.

conservnut on August 22, 2007 at 3:53 PM

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 3:35 PM

And on second thought, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Our current arguments ARE winning over the majority of voters in this country. The evidence of that is the miserable failure that was the recent Amnesty bill. We kicked our opponents in the teeth because we were on the majority side of the arguments politically. Our opponents in this debate claim that we are the one’s alienating certain ethnicities but according to the polls that does not seem to be the case. I say lets not take our opponents word for it and continue to kick our opponents in the teeth regarding this issue with as much furor and frequency as possible.

Zetterson on August 22, 2007 at 3:58 PM

I agree to a degree, though I do think that there are important elements about who it is we choose to bring in and who it is we choose not to bring in that we need to discuss. The multiculturalists have also stuck their heads into this debate and the foundation of their beliefs is that all cutures are equally valid. That is a lie. All cultures are not equally valid and they should not be treated as such. But perhaps you are correct. Perhaps strategically it is wiser to limit our arguments to stop the political bleeding. Everything will need to be adressed eventually though.

Zetterson on August 22, 2007 at 3:51 PM

I absolutely agree that not all cultures are equal. The issue is that the discussion has tiptoed into not all people being equal. The implication has become that certain types of people are somehow fundamentally incapable of assimilating or thriving within our culture, which does run completely counter to the American dream. That automatically excludes all Mexicans who have come here legally and are assimilated, right off the bat. Can someone explain to me what the incentive is for coming here legally when some on our side say at the outset of the debate that even if you come here legally, we don’t think you can assimilate. And then we call people crazy when they say we are risking the Hispanic vote.

Once again, this is a debate about message and tone. We are right about substance. Illegal immigration is wrong and must be stopped. Period. My concern is that our tone is hurting the substance of our message long-term.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 4:07 PM

I think we make a big mistake when we focus on the immigrant part as opposed to the illegal part.

I couldn’t agree more. Above all else, the legal/illegal distinction needs to be raised. It’s so often that the “open borders” crowd likes to emphasize that “we’re a nation of immigrants”, but neglects to add that all-important word, “legal”.

One other thing. A border open for illegals is a border open for terrorists.

Bigfoot on August 22, 2007 at 4:14 PM

My concern is that our tone is hurting the substance of our message long-term.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 4:07 PM

To me the main “message and tone” should be going after the plantation owner serf masters, not so much the “serfs”. If that is done (enforce the law, new laws if needed), most of the unassimilated/ not wanting to assimulate Mexicans would go home.

Similar to going after the drug dealers (like the W$J and Tysons Foods, DelMonte, etc., more etc.)more than the drug users (illegals).

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 4:15 PM

It’s so often that the “open borders” crowd likes to emphasize that “we’re a nation of immigrants”, but neglects to add that all-important word, “legal”.

Bigfoot on August 22, 2007 at 4:14 PM

In actuality, of course, most Americans are not immigrants. I am not.

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 4:18 PM

When I read these WSJ editorials they always sound in my head like Mr. Subliminal and I hear him say “lettuce (king cotton) will be more expensive if we dont have these workers (slaves)”
.
I feel sort of like a dork because I say the rule of law is really important in this issue, but that’s what missing in places like Iraq — you can write all the laws you want there, but the gov’t will still be corrupt. I think it’s a really bad idea to import a bunch of people who are predisposed to flouting the law.

Bad Penny on August 22, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Rule of law and national security. Period. Those messages need to be hammered home.

Bell curve arguments and stereotypes about what type of immigrant would add more value to the economy eliminates the moral high ground and is a losing hand.

One final note, the one thing that polls are missing in my opinion is level of intensity. Almost everyone (the open borders lobby excluded) disagrees with illegal immigration. However, I’m not sure it wins elections. It wins primaries (the durability of Rep. Chris Cannon notwithstanding), but the electoral record is mixed (Rep. Bilbray vs. former Rep. Hayworth). And unless the tone is managed well, it won’t matter 20 years from now since the demographics won’t be on our side anyways (the percentage of legally born Hispanics is outpacing every ethnic group in the US right now).

I’d love to see polling data on illegal immigration when it is framed as law and order/national security (like immigrants but dislike illegality) versus annoyance with changing demographics/alarmism about Third World Miamis popping up. I bet you one wins overwhelming among all voters of all ethnicities and one wins the intensity game but limited to the endangered species “angry white male” electoral segment.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 4:21 PM

To me the main “message and tone” should be going after the plantation owner serf masters, not so much the “serfs”. If that is done (enforce the law, new laws if needed), most of the unassimilated/ not wanting to assimulate Mexicans would go home.

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 4:15 PM

I wholeheartedly agree.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Good thing Rupert Murdock is acquiring the WSJ. The first thing I would do is fire that ideot Paul Gigot. His head is so far up his @ss that he can’t see daylight.

Anyone who believes that rewarding law breakers is good and smart is actually stupid. Cheating is cheating and anyone with any sense knows it, except that bonehead Gigot.

saiga on August 22, 2007 at 5:00 PM

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 4:21 PM

Well said. I agree.

Zetterson on August 22, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Once again, this is a debate about message and tone. We are right about substance. Illegal immigration is wrong and must be stopped. Period. My concern is that our tone is hurting the substance of our message long-term.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 4:07 PM

You are right, the tone has been fuel for the Lindsy Graham types. But, tough love is needed badly here and lipstick on that pig is a challenge. But immigration is great; lying and cheating is bad. Geraldo types can’t see the lying and cheating aspect of it so they just focus on ignorant masses of economic refugees that come here for selfish economic purposes.

saiga on August 22, 2007 at 5:08 PM

Mexican-Americans have higher incarceration rates than their immigrant parents. It’s not that we’re importing poverty, it’s that we’re importing people that can’t compete academically and that have little upward mobility. That isn’t true of the Asian and European immigrants that come here who do better than us.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Be careful. The political correct mob will tag you as a racist, even though your point is obvious.

saiga on August 22, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Be careful. The political correct mob will tag you as a racist, even though your point is obvious.

saiga on August 22, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Don’t care.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 5:21 PM

If all men were created equal, me and Yao Ming would be the same height, and Stephen Hawkings and I would have the same thoughts.

saiga on August 22, 2007 at 5:23 PM

I think we make a big mistake when we focus on the immigrant part as opposed to the illegal part. It steps completely on our message and plays directly into the hands of those who would like to paint this issue as veiled bigotry.

That’s my $0.02.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 3:35 PM

You have made some interesting points. I too think that if we focus our core message on “Sanctuary Nation versus Sovereign Nation,” then our side picks up more support quickly, even among lifelong Democrat liberals.

The primary issue is rewarding law-lessness and anarchy and openly mocking and disregarding the rule of law in the United States. If we focus our core message on that, our side will win many Democrat Blue States.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 5:25 PM

If all men were created equal, me and Yao Ming would be the same height, and Stephen Hawkings and I would have the same thoughts.

saiga on August 22, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Pretty much.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 5:25 PM

The primary issue is rewarding law-lessness and anarchy and openly mocking and disregarding the rule of law in the United States. If we focus our core message on that, our side will win many Democrat Blue States.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 5:25 PM

The Mexicans see it purely in racial terms.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 5:26 PM

The Mexicans see it purely in racial terms.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 5:26 PM

They may. But our campaign public relations and advertising departments need not. They may just focus on the repeating the “core message,” and then later gleefully watch left-leaning Democrat Blue states vote GOP.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 5:30 PM

They may. But our campaign public relations and advertising departments need not. They may just focus on the repeating the “core message,” and then later gleefully watch left-leaning Democrat Blue states vote GOP.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Feels like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but it’s worth a try I guess. Nobody trusts the GOP though. They’re just as bad. Once government squanders the public trust, it takes too long to get back for it to matter in this situation.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 5:32 PM

One other thing. A border open for illegals is a border open for terrorists.

Bigfoot on August 22, 2007 at 4:14 PM

True. Very true. And that is why I agree, along with Allahpundit, that Bush and Karl Rove squandered a historic opportunity to capitalize politically on border security after 9/11. Instead, we went into Iraq.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Nobody trusts the GOP though. They’re just as bad. Once government squanders the public trust, it takes too long to get back for it to matter in this situation.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 5:32 PM

Good point. That is why us conservatives have criticized Bush and Rove for squandering a historic opportunity for a GOP majority for the next 15-25 years. Now, people, from a perception angle, think “GOP” or “conservative,” and they immediately think of George W.

But with the Democrat Party attacking the “Blue Dogs” and becoming a servant to Daily Kos, maybe there is hope for the GOP to rebound and return to its roots.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 5:37 PM

True. Very true. And that is why I agree, along with Allahpundit, that Bush and Karl Rove squandered a historic opportunity to capitalize politically on border security after 9/11. Instead, we went into Iraq.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 5:33 PM

The terrorists are a much, much smaller threat than the Mexican illegals whose kids form the backbone of the gang problem and make vasts tracts of cities unlivable because of the gangs. They affect my life much more than the terrorists.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 5:38 PM

The Mexicans see it purely in racial terms.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 5:26 PM

If our side wants to play that game, it’s a loser on so many levels regardless of how their side sees it. First of all, Hispanic is an ethnicity not a race. There are white, black, and brown Hispanics. Hell, there are white, black, and brown Mexicans. And not all Mexicans see this as a race issue – La Raza does not speak for all Mexicans just because it wants to and says it does anymore than white nationalist groups speak for all whites regardless of the PR efforts and political arm twisting of La Raza, MALDEF, and similar groups.

What you’re advocating is shifting from an anti-illegal message to an anti-Mexican message which is unconstitutional and politically suicidal, regardless of whatever your feelings are about Mexican immigrants. Furthermore, your comments allow the open borders lobby to shift this issue to race instead of the rule of law which is a sure way to lose this battle and invite more amnesty.

And as far as all men are created equal, I was obviously alluding to that damn multiculturalist Thomas Jefferson – equal under the law and endowed with basic human rights not equal in outcomes, talents, or situations.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 5:40 PM

They affect my life much more than the terrorists.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 5:38 PM

I see the daily effects of illegal immigration. That is why I compliment John Edwards for his “Two Americas” speech: I just think he wrongly defined it. I believe there is the America (Wall Street Journal) that does not directly experience the negative consequences of illegal immigration, and there is the other side that sees it every day.

But remember, perception is often confused with reality.

I think we should communicate clearly, instead of diving into secondary issues that become (due to people’s perceptions) smoke-screens for most people. If we stay on focus, communicate the core, primary issue defined earlier, (“Sanctuary Nation vs. Sovereign Nation”) then the GOP message will resonate with almost everyone.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 5:44 PM

I damn sure don’t trust the government to make the hard nosed calls to protect our borders and motivate the illegals to leave. They want to frame the issue as “breaking up families”. To me, it is about lying, cheating, and document forging criminals violating our sovereignty for their own selfish financial interests and having me pick up the tab. I want it to stop.

saiga on August 22, 2007 at 5:45 PM

What you’re advocating is shifting from an anti-illegal message to an anti-Mexican message which is unconstitutional and politically suicidal, regardless of whatever your feelings are about Mexican immigrants. Furthermore, your comments allow the open borders lobby to shift this issue to race instead of the rule of law which is a sure way to lose this battle and invite more amnesty.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 5:40 PM

The “anti-illegal immigration” theme is a crowd-pleaser. Nobody wants the negative effects of a country built on anarchy and law-lessness.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 5:47 PM

The “anti-illegal immigration” theme is a crowd-pleaser. Nobody wants the negative effects of a country built on anarchy and law-lessness.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 5:47 PM

My point exactly. It hits the fairness theme for all the legal immigrants who waited in line (Hispanic and non-Hispanic alike). It hits the national security theme. It plays to Republican strengths as a law and order party and bypasses MSM memes and perceptions of the Republican party as a mostly white party scared of more brown people.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 5:49 PM

And not all Mexicans see this as a race issue – La Raza does not speak for all Mexicans just because it wants to and says it does anymore than white nationalist groups speak for all whites regardless of the PR efforts and political arm twisting of La Raza, MALDEF, and similar groups.

I see billboards all over the place for a radio station called “La Raza.” They identify heavily with their race, whether we like it or not. They may be ethnically heterogeneous, but Mexico identifies itself as a mestizo nation.

What you’re advocating is shifting from an anti-illegal message to an anti-Mexican message which is unconstitutional and politically suicidal,

I don’t think I’m advocating that. Steve Sailer probably would suggest it. I’m also not quite sure why its unconstitutional, because all of the immigration laws until 1965 allowed only whites to immigrate here. I’m not sure quite why its politically suicidal, as it seems to work quite well for the Congressional black and hispanic caucuses. I’m more just thinking out loud. But this issue is primarily a demographic one, if you ask me. Blacks and whites lose jobs to hispanics and hispanics make up the fastest growing portion of the population, they assimilate poorly, live in their own neighborhoods and assert their culture. I guess what I’m asking is, should blacks and whites respond to this apparent racial hegemony?

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Black Republican:

I checked out your site.

You are NOT a Patriots fan, are you???

I mean, you did live in Indiana earlier, right?
You haven’t forgotten God’s team, right?

:-)

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 5:57 PM

God help them that they’d have to hire legal nannies, gardeners, pool boys, bartenders, masseuses, maids and housepainters.

That extra $3-5 an hour would surely bankrupt the WSJ gang.

Swine.

Their time has passed.

I hope their offices are very high up.

Wouldn’t want them to just break a hip.

profitsbeard on August 22, 2007 at 6:00 PM

God help them that they’d have to hire legal nannies, gardeners, pool boys, bartenders, masseuses, maids and housepainters.

That extra $3-5 an hour would surely bankrupt the WSJ gang.

Swine.

God forbid they lift a finger themselves. The WSJ is just the rich, white leisure class that can’t go to the bathroom without having a latin American illegal help them.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 6:03 PM

The WSJ is just the rich, white leisure class that can’t go to the bathroom without having a latin American illegal help them.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 6:03 PM

They are the “country club Republicans.” Reagan Republicans are a lot different from country club Republicans.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 6:04 PM

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 5:53 PM

I understand you’re thinking out loud. My point is that blacks and whites are not going to unite over illegal immigration. Blacks don’t trust Republicans going back to the time that Barry Goldwater voted against Civil Rights because of federalist arguments but then proceeded to win votes from those who opposed Civil Rights for more sinister reasons. He lost the PR debate and we now have 10% of blacks or so voting Republican. We are about to lose the PR debate with the Hispanic vote which will comprise 1/3 of America by 2050. If we lose the winnable Hispanics, we can say goodbye to the Republican party. This is not, repeat not, an argument for squishiness about illegal immigration. This is an argument for being strategically savvy about this particular issue by attacking illegal immigration and ignoring the ethnicity piece as that causes us to send the message that we don’t want Mexicans – assimilated or unassimilated, legal or illegal in the Republican party. God help us if we unnecessarily lose voters because we’re clumsy with our messaging though absolutely right in our substance.

Also, you can’t seriously believe that any federal court will restrict immigration laws to whites. First of all, that’s a repugnant idea. Second of all, pre-1965, there were a lot of unpleasant things that were legal that were struck down by the courts and/or through congressional legislation. Third, trying to bring blacks into a coalition with whites by arguing for whites-only immigration or bringing up pre-1965 whites-only legislation shows unfathomable tone-deafness. Fourth, my lower income black friends are amused by the sudden professed concern about their job opportunities now that the white proportion of the population is declining and they need the numbers that an alliance between blacks and whites would provide. I haven’t found a good rebuttal for them yet other than to shift the conversation to the fact that most black leaders ignore the negative impacts of illegal immigration because of the fabled, black-brown coalition fantasy.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Black Republican:

I checked out your site.

You are NOT a Patriots fan, are you???

I mean, you did live in Indiana earlier, right?
You haven’t forgotten God’s team, right?

:-)

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Haha. I actually was born in Illinois but my family resides in Indiana now so I’m a Bears fan. In spite of my exile in Boston, I have not become a Patriots, Red Sox, or Bruins fan and pray for the grace to never become one.

:)

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Just one additional point.

Back when the illegals were demonstrating in the streets waving Mexican flags and demanding amnesty, my thoughts were “who the hell do these people think they are” and “they think they are indispensable”.

A tough crackdown on illegals here would do two things. First, it would inject a deeper respect for the wishes of the American public, And second, it would show the American public is ultimately in charge.

saiga on August 22, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Third, trying to bring blacks into a coalition with whites by arguing for whites-only immigration or bringing up pre-1965 whites-only legislation shows unfathomable tone-deafness.
blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 6:11 PM

I agree with your entire, lengthy comment.

But I selected the above as a blockquote simply because I believe that Polish illegal immigration is just as relevant as Scandinavian illegal immigration and is just as relevant as Mexican illegal immigration.

Yes, the practical effects may differ among ethnic groups for a multiplicity of reasons, but the principle (rule of law) is the same.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 6:18 PM

saiga-

So, you’re suggesting Beyonce’s hit “Irreplacable” for the 2008 anti-illegal campsign theme song?

To the left… to the left...”?

Hmmm…

Might work.

profitsbeard on August 22, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Blacks don’t trust Republicans going back to the time that Barry Goldwater voted against Civil Rights because of federalist arguments but then proceeded to win votes from those who opposed Civil Rights for more sinister reasons. He lost the PR debate and we now have 10% of blacks or so voting Republican. We are about to lose the PR debate with the Hispanic vote which will comprise 1/3 of America by 2050.

Blacks vote along for the party they think best represents their race. So do hispanics. That party will never be the Republicans. Just look at California. The best Republicans can hope for is closing off the borders and trying to represent whites as best they can, because that’s their voting block, period. The more Mexicans that come, you’re right, the smaller the Republicans’ chance of getting elected. Pandering to them means opening the borders, and the Democrats will get credit for that no matter what the Republicans to do. The MSM PR machine will see to that. Like it or not, Mexicans will vote along racial lines, though slightly less monolithically than blacks. Given that 90% of the up-and-coming Mexican politicians in the US are Democrats, guess who they’re going to vote for? Messaging doesn’t matter as much as race to them, and they see nothing wrong with promoting their race. They also can’t imagine whites not doing the same.

Fourth, my lower income black friends are amused by the sudden professed concern about their job opportunities now that the white proportion of the population is declining and they need the numbers that an alliance between blacks and whites would provide. I haven’t found a good rebuttal for them yet other than to shift the conversation to the fact that most black leaders ignore the negative impacts of illegal immigration because of the fabled, black-brown coalition fantasy.

Pretty true. There is no black-brown coalition. They fight each other in prison and it spills out into the streets. I have no idea why black leaders pretend it exists. But Mexico operates like Jim Crow America. The darker you are, the lower your status in society. Maybe you should tell your friends that. The more we become like Mexico, the more your friends will be faced with a return to Jim Crow, if they are old enough to remember it.

None of these thoughts of mine are original. I guess I’ve just been reading VDARE too much. But Peter Brimelow et al seem to have the most accurate understanding of reality. The 1965 immigration act, in addition to changing our demographic makeup, immediately started depressing wages for blacks. Something to consider.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Hunter Pushes President to Build Border Fence

“Hunter campaigning in Texas since last week noted “The Texas border remains wide open.” Hunter continued, “Not a single inch of border fence has been built in Texas since President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law.”

The meager 17.9 miles of fence that has been finished are in different states. The department of Homeland Security has the money and the mandate, but “the administration has a ‘case of the slows’ in getting the fence built.” He pledged that he would see that the fence is constructed within six month after his election as President.”

MB4 on August 22, 2007 at 6:26 PM

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Well, whites don’t vote monolithically Republican. They already split their votes between Republicans and Democrats and young people are trending even more Democrat (regardless of race). So we have a shrinking base for the Republican party and instead of figuring out how to enlarge the base, we should just hold the fort until we’re electorally overwhelmed. You can’t be serious. Republicans have been absent from the game with both blacks and Hispanics. We don’t know how to communicate. It’s a miracle I became Republican because I sure as hell didn’t know there was room for me in the party.

We don’t have the option of writing off the fastest growing blocks of the electorate just because we suck at communicating with them or the Democrats have kicked our asses for so long that we feel defeatist. If we do, we can forget about every issue we care about because we are by default handicapping ourselves politically and setting the stage for the votes to shift to a party dominated by the DailyKos and Cindy Sheehan and its tinfoil theories and national policy prescriptions.

The Hispanic population is growing beyond Mexicans. Even if we deported every single illegal alien in this country, Hispanics would still be the fastest growing ethnic group. And as for California, Peter Wilson made the mistake with Proposition 187 of not winning the message game. He played right into the hands of those who wanted to make it racial as opposed to about law and because he didn’t frame. Though the measure passed and he won a short term victory, his message clumsiness has turned the state even bluer. I expect the message-retarded blowhards on our side are working on further reducing our electoral possibilities by poorly communicating to the fastest growing demographic in reliably red states like Colorado, Florida, Arizona, etc.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 6:36 PM

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 6:18 PM

That’s where I’m coming from.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 6:47 PM

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Unfortunately, your comment about a black/white coalition is sadly true.

Also, you are right about many whites being concerned about too many browns in the mix. The Katrina pictures of thousands of blacks standing around waiting to be saved while the news media talked about New Orleans looking like a third world country was a wake up call. The New Orleans welfare system condemned those people to be economically and academically non-competitive. When I worked as a salesman in the inner city neighborhoods as a grocery supplier to small stores, I saw the horizontal discrimination and the deep belief that so many browns had that they didn’t have the juice to get in the economic game. I realized that I had people growing up just a few miles away from me, and I couldn’t understand their speech. There were two different worlds within the same city that didn’t even speak the same language.

Having Millions of illegals here just sets up another underclass that we will try to assimilate. I would rather try and elevate the opportunity of our own underclass citizens and assimilate them first.

When I looked at Katrina, I saw a problem not with Fima, but with welfare and vote farming. Add amnesty to millions of illegal Hispanics to the mix, and our problems just got much bigger. Different worlds in the same small towns based on race or culture is not good. We have plenty of American citizens that need our resources and attention to help them achieve the American dream, and millions more illegals just divert resources and attention.

saiga on August 22, 2007 at 7:03 PM

BlackRepublican,

Are you cool with these guys?

I like these guys the best. I actually went to their conference in Chicago, Illinois. Pretty good teaching.

Thanks for your earlier comments.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 7:06 PM

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Thank you, ColtsFan. I was actually unaware of these guys. I’m going to see if they have any churches in Boston.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Does anyone ever wonder what Hispanics want or why they vote so monolithically? I suspect that the answer will be contrary to the Republican platform.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 7:32 PM

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Well 30-40% of them were voting Republican (or at least for W and Jeb though Cornyn held his own as well). We were winning white Catholic voters and some Hispanic Catholic voters on the pro-life issue and anti-gay marriage issue. Also Hispanic evangelicals are growing especially Hispanic Pentecostals and they were receptive to greater school accountability and the faith-based initiative. I can’t remember the polling but I think school vouchers are pretty popular as well. Hispanic voters tend to be more socially conservative and family-oriented which on its face seems to be a good fit with the family values party.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 7:42 PM

Hispanic voters tend to be more socially conservative and family-oriented which on its face seems to be a good fit with the family values party.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 7:42 PM

Yes, but the desire for more welfare trumps all of that. They know where their bread is buttered.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Black Republican,

You are welcome to join us and make comments at

Lion of Judah-Journal.

Your contributions would be appreciated. I gotta run.

ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 7:46 PM

I have a good friend who is a Union Official. He is ecstatic that the shamnesty bill got shot down. Now he is rethinking his party affiliations as are the members of the Union Council. There may be a few suprises when it comes to Union endorsement in the primaries. The more the Dems move to the left the more moderates in their party who can see the writting on the wall are getting worried. Don’t forget Ronald Regean was once a Democrat. JFK was a conservative by todays standards. It was inevidible that the illegals would try to ride on the backs of the real civil rights movement. This is an outrage as was the womens movement who coupled with African American men in the workplace leaving many African American women still impoverished and in many cases worse off in the private sector job market. Many African Americans at least in LA County are outraged by this, and rightfully so. Theirs was a nightmarish plight not of their own making. It lasted for two hundred years or longer. Illegals especially Mexicans should endeavour to make their own countries better. Elvira dosen’t even speak english in her interview. Without assimilation the illegal influx of immigrants amounts to an outright invasion of a foreign army. ‘We The People’ need to remain vigilant to the tactics being used by the likes of La Raza and other activist groups. Make no mistake about it they are here with the help of big business and the US government. These are third world thugs and cutthroats who are going to try to impose their will on the people of the US. We cannot allow the MSM and the congress to usurp our sovereignty. If that ever happens we may get a government in the Hugo Chavez mold. The issue is not a hummanitarian one or one of justice. We are at the brink of disaster and it is crunch time. If Elvrira wants to get on her soap box have at it. If Elvira wants to evade immigration officials for all the years she did thats her perogative, but these choices are not without consequence. Now the MSM is making a martyr of her and trying to build icon status. To me Elvira is an illegal alien who broke the law of out country and should be happy she only got deported.

sonnyspats1 on August 22, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Ahh, Bryan. You and Allah always bring a smile to my mouth with your witty, yet searing op. ed’s. Keep up the good work.

Troy Rasmussen on August 22, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Yes, but the desire for more welfare trumps all of that. They know where their bread is buttered.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Is this based on polls or Dobbs? The data is a little old but according to HHS FY 2003, we have 2,027,600 on welfare. 32% are white, 38% Af-Am, 25% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 1.5% Native American. From FY 2000 to FY 2003, there’s actually been a minuscule drop among blacks and Hispanics. Looking at percentage representation for Hispanics, it seems we’re far from a crisis. We would have a crisis if we adopted open borders policy but I think it would most likely impact other social services (emergency rooms, insurance, etc) predominantly. I think most illegals are coming here to work but I’d be interested in seeing any data that you have.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 8:59 PM

In 2004, 50 percent of Hispanic households used at least one form of welfare, compared to 47 percent of blacks and 18 percent of whites (see Figure 6).(20) In 2005, 13 percent of Hispanic households used food stamps, as opposed to five percent of white households. Puerto Rican households were more than four times more likely than whites to use food stamps and Mexicans almost three times more likely.(21) Non-citizens are generally ineligible for many forms of welfare; if many Hispanics were to gain citizenship, Hispanic welfare use would rise.

20. US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2005 (Washington, DC: USCB, 2005), http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/pov/new26_001.htm. Accessed June 19, 2006.

21. Current Population Survey, March 2005.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 9:30 PM

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 8:59 PM

I might add that I still don’t think your statistics make them look good. In 2003, they were what, 10% or less of the U.S. populaton? They’re vastly over-represented in the welfare benefits they use. Whites, being 66% of the population, are underrepresented as only 33% of the welfare recipients.

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 10:11 PM

No, I don’t necessarily think it’s a happy number. My point is that I don’t view welfare as a motivating factor for immigration. Perhaps there are polls out there that show that this is true though.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 10:24 PM

I meant to say illegal immigration.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 10:27 PM

That’s my $0.02.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Here you have $0.98 change coming back to you. Heh Heh

sonnyspats1 on August 22, 2007 at 10:59 PM

No, I don’t necessarily think it’s a happy number. My point is that I don’t view welfare as a motivating factor for immigration. Perhaps there are polls out there that show that this is true though.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 10:24 PM

Well, you and I will be footing the bill for the next amnesty. Funny, the Roman Empire turned into a giant welfare state before it collapsed. Oh well. What’s another 100 million poor people?

PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Why are there no articles in Hotair about the North America Security and Prosperity summit in Quebec and specifically, why is there not one blip about Calderon’s speech???
This is why the government says that it’s going to secure the border (for instance) then does nothing. This is why we have sanctuary cities and hear whisperings about the Nafta Superhighway: the NAU is forming.
This is the topic that dwarfs all topics.

Christine on August 23, 2007 at 11:22 AM

The Hispanic population is growing beyond Mexicans. Even if we deported every single illegal alien in this country, Hispanics would still be the fastest growing ethnic group. And as for California, Peter Wilson made the mistake with Proposition 187 of not winning the message game. He played right into the hands of those who wanted to make it racial as opposed to about law and because he didn’t frame. Though the measure passed and he won a short term victory, his message clumsiness has turned the state even bluer. I expect the message-retarded blowhards on our side are working on further reducing our electoral possibilities by poorly communicating to the fastest growing demographic in reliably red states like Colorado, Florida, Arizona, etc.

blackrepublican on August 22, 2007 at 6:36 PM

I disagree with your contention about prop 187. It was a winning issue then and it was a winning issue when we recalled Gray Davis for giving Drivers Licenses to Illegals in California. Arnold’s whole campaign was based on repealing the driver license law for Illegals.

I also disagree with your contention the Hispanics are going to be the largest voting block. The statistics do not back up your contention.

According to Steve Sailer,In 2006, the Long Predicted Tidal Wave of Angry Hispanic Voters Failed to Materialize Once Again;

Whites accounted for 81% of the votes in 2006, unchanged from 2002. In absolute numbers, an additional 5.6 million whites cast ballots in the 2006 election compared with the 2002 election. Blacks accounted for 10% of the votes in 2006, down from about 11% in 2002. The black vote increased by 400,000 in 2006

The 5.6 million votes cast by Hispanics in 2006 represented 13% of the total Hispanic population. The 9.9 million votes cast by black represented 27% of the black population and the 78 million votes cast by whites represented 39% of the white population.

So, non-Hispanic white residents of America voted in 2006 at three times the rate of Hispanic residents.
Overall, whites cast almost 12 ballots for every ballot cast by a Hispanic

The RNC tried to pander to the Hispanic vote and it has failed miserably. They should stick to conservative values and they will win every time. Like enforcing our immigration laws and smaller government.

ScottyDog on August 23, 2007 at 12:39 PM