Rand Paul on immigration: Republicans have got to get beyond deportation

posted at 1:21 pm on April 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Before anyone excommunicates him from the GOP on grounds of RINOism, ask yourself: Will there be a single Republican candidate onstage next year at the debates who challenges him on this point? Don’t say Cruz. Cruz opposes a path to citizenship but he’s in line with Paul, Rubio, etc, on legalization and work permits, which are the truly important provisions. Once legalization is granted, citizenship will inevitably follow. (That’s why it’s crucial to secure the border first, to make sure that this amnesty is the last amnesty.) If Paul’s candidacy is DOA for taking this line, I’m not sure whose candidacy is still alive.

Besides, America is already largely “beyond deportation.”

During a symposium at the Newseum on conservative engagement with Hispanic media outlets, Paul also said Republicans have plenty of ideas that appeal to Latinos, but acknowledged, “We got to get beyond deportation to get to the rest of the issues.”

“The bottom line is that the Hispanic community, the Latino community, is not going to hear us until we get beyond that issue. They’re not going to care whether we go to the same church or have the same values or believe in the same kind of future of the country until we get beyond that. So showing up helps. But you got to show up and you got to say something and it’s has to be different than what we’ve been saying.”…

“I think one way to get the door ajar is say that you know, Mrs. Garcia’s nephew is not going to be sent home to Mexico,” he said. “You know, because everybody — even those who are here illegally — know somebody who is here who doesn’t have the proper visa.”…

Paul, who voted against last year’s Senate comprehensive immigration bill, expressed frustration that the bill still keeps it illegal for immigrants with certain visas to change jobs while in the United States. He gave an example of a migrant worker who came here with a legal visa to pick crops for $9 dollars an hour but later saw a construction job that paid $14 dollars an hour.

The most interesting part of that to me isn’t the deportation bit. After the beating Romney took for advocating attrition through enforcement, a.k.a. “self-deportation,” in 2012, no Republican with national ambitions is going to defend the D-word. The interesting part is that Rand is still kinda sorta pushing the “Latinos are conservatives but just don’t know it yet” line which, I thought, most people who follow politics now accepted was self-serving nonsense endorsed by GOP amnesty fans. More than one poll, including the national exit poll in 2012, show Latinos favoring gay marriage. Abortion is more complicated, but the same 2012 exit poll found that 66 percent of Latinos thought abortion should be legal compared to 59 percent of the overall population. Maybe that’s an artifact of higher turnout among Latino Democrats for Obama’s reelection bid or maybe it’s a more durable trend. As for Paul’s point about sharing a vision for the future of the country, here’s the reality from Pew circa April 2012:

pew

A Gallup poll taken two months later, in June 2012, showed a similar result. When asked whether government is doing too much or not enough, American registered voters overall split 57/37. Latino registered voters split 35/56. And so we return to the big question: Are these preferences more a product of firm ideological inclination or are they more a product of alienation from the GOP over immigration policy? Republicans don’t need to win a majority of Latinos to make Democrats’ lives difficult electorally — even a 40/60 split would be tough for the left — but the “ask” here in terms of legalizing 10+ million people is high given the uncertainty. Look back at the Pew poll and you’ll find a further complication: It’s younger Latinos and recent immigrants who are the furthest left politically. Is that because they’re alienated from the GOP in a way that older generations, which watched Reagan sign the 1986 amnesty, aren’t? Or is it because broader political trends, like the leftward drift and lesser role of religion among younger voters generally, have delivered them there? The problem is more or less fixable depending upon how you answer. Republican candidates, Paul included, have to take the “it’s our fault” line because they can’t afford to formally write off an entire demographic. The trick is convincing Republican base voters that it’s true.


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

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

Rand Paul is and always has been a RINO, self serving dooooosh bag. His sucking up to McConnell and trying to piggy back Ted Cruz should have told you all you need to know.

Put him in the pile of other RINO, lying seriously conservative dooooosh bags.

they lie on April 2, 2014 at 2:38 PM

They now use illegal border jumpers to over power your vote, your rule of law, your freedom, your justice, your lives.

They now build a coast to coast tax and spend reservation for U.S. all and the made members of the two party evil money cult in Washington D.C. are in it together.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 2, 2014 at 2:44 PM

If it quacks like amnesty it is amnesty.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 2, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Rand Paul is no fool he knows he can not get elected, but is smart enough to be a member of the club who want to make sure Ted Cruz does not get the Republican nomanation.

Huckabee, Paul, Scott Walker, Newt, and one or two others will be put in the mix to enable Bush III or Christy to win.

Nothing new here. Rand will get a Senate leadership “pork” project job.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 2, 2014 at 2:48 PM

If you welcome them here in any way, then their kids will still become Americans and still suck up resources and still vote Democratic. You’ll only delay the inevitable.

Pincher Martin

And his “I don’t want to give them voting privileges” is naive at best. Even worse, it’s dishonest, and is the more likely reason he spews this nonsense. Do they have voting privileges now? No. Are they influencing the politics in this country despite having to “hide in the shadows”, lol? Uh, yes. Legalize them and bring them “out of the shadows” and they will have even more influence, whether they can vote or not. And of course, the logical next step is to use that new found power to demand voting rights. And then folks like Alchemist will say we have to let them vote because there’s just no other way.

xblade on April 2, 2014 at 4:23 PM

xblade,

I agree.

Pincher Martin on April 2, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Rand Paul is and always has been a RINO, self serving dooooosh bag. His … trying to piggy back Ted Cruz should have told you all you need to know.

they lie on April 2, 2014 at 2:38 PM

What?!? Paul was elected in 2010, 2012 for Cruz. Rand Paul campaigned for Cruz, as did Ron Paul, in the Texas Republican primary. Paul’s filibuster was at least 6 months before Cruz’s “filibuster”. If anyone is copying the other it is Cruz copying Rand. And I’m saying this as someone who voted for Cruz in the primary and general election.

rndmusrnm on April 2, 2014 at 6:30 PM

You’re conflating two separate arguments. The Reconquista argument (#1), which I’m not wedded to, but which I believe deserves more respect than you’re giving it. And the Hispanics-are-natural-Democrats argument (#2), which is a much more obvious and immediate threat to Republican fortunes.

My comment about residual Marxist thought in Latin America was a leftover remark from our previous discussion and has a lot more to do with #1 than #2. Most Hispanics are obviously not Marxists, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be influenced by the intellectual culture they came from, even if they never went to school.

But putting aide the Reconquista argument, nowhere in Latin America do we find a strong constituency of libertarian thinking. That’s an Anglo political preoccupation – and it is shrinking even there. Most people who come from Latin America – even those who identify as conservative – are quite comfortable with the notion of a strong state that helps them throughout their lives in education, welfare, health, and retirement.

I’m not specifically referring to the Reconquista fairy tale, just that the people who could even theoretically be influenced by Latin American Marxist academics (because the educated in Latin America are the one illegally immigrating en masse) are the ones I’m saying we shouldn’t be enfranchising.

The only reason I mentioned Jewish-Americans is because they are an example of a successful immigrant group which have been in the United States for a long time and has assimilated in every possible way, but which Republicans still can’t win over. In fact, if Republicans weren’t already such strong supporters of Israel, I suspect that many Republicans would argue that we have to support the Jewish state in order to win the Jewish vote – in much the same way that they argue, without evidence, that we need to be soft on immigration to win the Hispanic vote.

In both cases, those Republicans assume that some issue must be of such critical importance to the group in questions that members of it will reward the party at the polls that leans their direction. But just as supporting Israel has won the GOP no converts among the Jews, so amnesty will win the GOP no converts among Hispanic voters.

Pincher Martin on April 2, 2014 at 2:44 AM

Well jeez, if you with all your authority are saying that then it must be true!

alchemist19 on April 2, 2014 at 8:04 PM

But Jewish voting patterns are not fully explained by either education or urbanization. Jews are a strong outlier and always have been, and the best explanation for it is cultural – they simply don’t identify with other whites and are quite comfortable with a large and liberal state.

The closest the GOP presidential candidate has ever come to winning the Jewish vote after WW2 was in the 1980 race when Ronald Reagan won 39 percent of the Jewish vote to Carter’s 45 percent. (The remainder probably went for third-party candidate John Anderson.)

Most Americans thought Reagan’s first term was successful and gave him a ringing endorsement by increasing his share of the overall popular vote from 51 percent in 1980 to 59 percent in 1984.

Did the Jewish voters see things the same way?

Not even close. Reagan’s share of the Jewish vote dropped eight points in those four years, while Mondale’s share of the Jewish vote went up twenty-two points over Carter’s share in 1980. How do you explain that?

Education and urbanization certainly can’t explain it.

By the way, Reagan’s share of the Hispanic vote also went down in those four years. Apparently Reagan did something in that time that neither Jewish nor Hispanic voters liked.

Pincher Martin on April 2, 2014 at 2:56 AM

The persistent liberalism of Jews is an almost quixotic thing a number of people (Norman Podhoretz comes first to my mind) have attempted to explain. There’s really no right or wrong answer but an interesting theory I recall hearing from Jewish writers in the past is that Jews were oppressed for so long that it’s become ingrained in their collective memories so they now are drawn to people who side with “the little guy” against the powerful and that, to them, is the Democrats. It doesn’t seem to be a widely held belief that crosses other previously oppressed ethnic or national groups, and that’s probably a good thing for us.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Yes, after a century of support for the Democratic Party, white Catholics began to shift their partisan voting patterns.

Do we have a century to wait for Hispanic voters? Should we start telling conservatives to not worry because Hispanics are sure to be a true swing vote in the presidential election of 2100?

Good luck with that argument.

******

It’s also necessary to understand why white Catholics started changed parties when they did. It had little to do with what Republicans were doing. Many Catholics hated the turn the Democratic Party took in the sixties and seventies. They didn’t mind big government, but they disliked the sexual revolution and the pacifism of the Democratic Party. So some of them began to migrate to the GOP with the more socially conservative and the more vociferously anti-Communist of Catholics leading the way.

Even so, white Catholics have only recently become a part of the Republican base, and the Catholic vote as a whole (including Hispanics) has still voted for the Democratic candidate in the last seven presidential contests, according to Gallup.

Pincher Martin on April 2, 2014 at 3:08 AM

People who’ve studied the matter don’t chalk the whole movement of white Catholics up to social conservative policies alone but I’m sure that played a part in it. Whatever the reason was though, it does appear inescapable that given a few generations in the US, Catholics assimilated.

The biggest potential electoral trouble for the GOP comes from the most recent immigrants, a group I’ve recommended against enfranchising if they came here illegally. The glaring hole in your analysis is you seem to be overlooking the fact that the Hispanic community is not made up of just the illegals. In the same way Jews latch on to the Democrats because of their history of oppression, we’re writing a similar history for Hispanics right now. People whose families immigrated recently can relate to the plight of today’s immigrants; and the children of illegals who make it here and give birth and full-fledged citizens from Day One while we threaten to deport their parents or their grandparents. Rush has made the point more than once that if people don’t like you they’re not going to vote for you and Republicans are making it really easy of Hispanics not to like us. Our political opponents are professional race-baiters who have demonstrated they have great skill in turning racial minorities against conservatives. If the Democrats do with the large and growing legal Hispanic community in this country what they did with African-Americans then we’re politically dead forever.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Pincher Martin on April 2, 2014 at 3:24 AM

I was responding to someone who appeared to me to be attacking the concept of nation building. I didn’t say we were batting 1.000 and if something I said could be understood to mean that then I’ll set the record straight here, but to imply we can’t ever succeed at the task isn’t factually correct.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Dunkirk. Three Hundred Thousand people moved over the English Channel in nine days time.

At that pace, it would take four hundred and fifty days to deport fifteen million illegal aliens.

Anyone who says deportation is impossible, is lying. It can be done, and a lot easier than it was at Dunkirk; there’s no Germans shooting at anyone this time.

Too bad politicians are too busy looking for ways to appeal to illegal votes, instead of enforcing immigration laws.

Deport every illegal alien, starting right now. When they can speak our common, de-facto National Language, and accept a Social Security number so they can pay taxes like most folks here, they are welcome to move in next door.

a5minmajor on April 2, 2014 at 11:05 PM

Alchemsti19,

Well jeez, if you with all your authority are saying that then it must be true!

One doesn’t need to be an authority to point out the obvious.

Over the last thirty years, the GOP and its social conservative constituencies have been a much better friend to Israel than the Democrats, yet Jewish voting patterns remain consistently and overwhelmingly in favor of the Democratic Party.

Polling of Hispanics also show that immigration isn’t as important to them as the media and GOP establishment present it. Among registered Hispanic voters, it only ranked fifth in a question of “which of the following issues is most important to you” – just slightly ahead of the federal budget deficit.

So what do you expect to get out of this comprehensive immigration move, genius? More Democratic voters for a little temporary, favorable media coverage? Good thinking. You clearly are angling for a job on Karl Rove’s staff of strategic misfits.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 12:53 AM

Alchemist19,

The persistent liberalism of Jews is an almost quixotic thing a number of people (Norman Podhoretz comes first to my mind) have attempted to explain. There’s really no right or wrong answer but an interesting theory I recall hearing from Jewish writers in the past is that Jews were oppressed for so long that it’s become ingrained in their collective memories so they now are drawn to people who side with “the little guy” against the powerful and that, to them, is the Democrats. It doesn’t seem to be a widely held belief that crosses other previously oppressed ethnic or national groups, and that’s probably a good thing for us.

It doesn’t? I’m sure African-Americans would have a thing or two to tell you about your assumption on what is ingrained in their “collective memories.”

And don’t Hispanics also have a culture of grievance? Haven’t we been talking about the Reconquista, for example? What is that but a well-known and recently-created Mexican grievance about a historical event that’s over a hundred and fifty years old?

And don’t all Hispanics willingly line up to be part of the victim culture? Do you see any of them turning down affirmative action, for example, because they willingly came to this country? I don’t.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 1:03 AM

Alchemist19,

People who’ve studied the matter don’t chalk the whole movement of white Catholics up to social conservative policies alone but I’m sure that played a part in it. Whatever the reason was though, it does appear inescapable that given a few generations in the US, Catholics assimilated.

Catholics started moving to the GOP in the 60s and 70s because of the sexual revolution and the new-found pacifism of the Democratic Party in the wake of the Vietnam War.

Think back to 1972 and George McGovern – that was the first election that Catholics overwhelmingly voted for the GOP presidential candidate (Richard Nixon).

Why? Because many Catholics hated the hippies and the pacifistic attitude of McGovern toward the commies in the middle of a war.

But most Catholics voters – who were almost all white at the time – still liked big government programs. They just didn’t care for the free love movement or communism, whose partisans they began to feel were taking over the Democratic Party.

So my point was that Catholics didn’t change and become small-government Republicans. There was no GOP messaging that changed their politics. Rather it was the Democratic Party which changed on social and foreign policy, and many Catholics were uncomfortable with that change and started voting for the Republicans.

But that took over a hundred years to happen.

That’s why it’s silly to talk about GOP messaging as if it’s going to make a huge difference in any election. Hispanics are wanting around for you to tell them how to vote. They have their own ideas.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 1:19 AM

Correction to the last paragraph in my last post:

“That’s why it’s silly to talk about GOP messaging as if it’s going to make a huge difference in any election. Hispanics are not waiting around for you to tell them how to vote. They have their own ideas.”

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 1:22 AM

Alchemist19,

The glaring hole in your analysis is you seem to be overlooking the fact that the Hispanic community is not made up of just the illegals. In the same way Jews latch on to the Democrats because of their history of oppression, we’re writing a similar history for Hispanics right now.

Yeah, us terrible Republicans, driving Hispanic voters into the arms of the Democrats because we’re such haters.

There’s no “oppression,” jackass. We do a far better job in how we treat Hispanics than their own countries can do for them. Stop sounding like all you read is the New York Times.

Hispanics have always voted for Democrats. Always. Ever since they could.

Here is what the Hispanic vote looks like for the last forty years of Roper exit polls on the U.S. presidential elections.

1976:

Carter – 82

Ford – 18

1980:

Carter – 56

Reagan – 37

Anderson – 7

1984:

Mondale – 66

Reagan – 34

1988: (The election after Reagan’s 1986 amnesty)

Dukakis – 70

Bush – 30

1992:

Clinton – 61

Bush – 25

Perot – 14

1996:

Clinton – 73

Dole – 21

Perot – 6

2000:

Gore – 62

Bush – 35

Buchanan – 1

Nader – 2

2004:

Kerry – 53

Bush – 44* (Exit poll company later said this was an error and gave Bush 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. I’m keeping the original figure because that’s what Roper ‘s exit poll shows.)

2008:

Obama – 67

McCain – 31

2012:

Obama – 71

Romney – 27

******

Do you see a pattern here? You should, if you’re not an idiot.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 1:37 AM

My state of California was once a purple state that voted six consecutive times for the GOP presidential candidate (from 1968 to 1988). It was the political birthplace of Reagan, and some people credit it for being one of the birthplaces of the conservative movement.

So what happened? Why is it now as blue as Massachusetts or New York?

Immigration. The state looks entirely different than it did twenty-five years ago.

And now you’re trying to do for the nation what has already been done for my state.

Well, I’m not much for watching sequels of bad movies.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 1:48 AM

House Republican traitors’ latest ploy for illegal alien amnesty:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/04/02/exclusive-house-republicans-secret-immigration-ploy

bluegill on April 3, 2014 at 4:41 AM

One doesn’t need to be an authority to point out the obvious.

Over the last thirty years, the GOP and its social conservative constituencies have been a much better friend to Israel than the Democrats, yet Jewish voting patterns remain consistently and overwhelmingly in favor of the Democratic Party.

Polling of Hispanics also show that immigration isn’t as important to them as the media and GOP establishment present it. Among registered Hispanic voters, it only ranked fifth in a question of “which of the following issues is most important to you” – just slightly ahead of the federal budget deficit.

So what do you expect to get out of this comprehensive immigration move, genius? More Democratic voters for a little temporary, favorable media coverage? Good thinking. You clearly are angling for a job on Karl Rove’s staff of strategic misfits.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 12:53 AM

The error you’re making, and I’m not sure if you’re deliberately misleading or if you don’t know any better yourself, is focusing on the top issue alone and using that as justification for writing off the rest. To illustrate: If you were given a list of issues by a pollster and selected the economy as your top issue does that mean you don’t care about tax rates or national defense, or that if a candidate said they wanted to mothball the military, close down the Pentagon and the DoD and replace them with a Department of Peace that that wouldn’t influence your vote? Of course it would.

A more useful poll can be found here.

And because I have to keep repeating it, I don’t support enfranchising illegals. Heck, if anything legalizing them might move them towards conservatism. Right now if you’re illegal and working for cash under the table you’re not paying any taxes and you’re going to the emergency room for your health care at our expense. Legalize and let them get a taste of paying Barack Obama’s tax rates, and deal with Barack Obama’s health care program with all its mandate and see if that changes their tune a bit.

alchemist19 on April 3, 2014 at 5:34 PM

It doesn’t? I’m sure African-Americans would have a thing or two to tell you about your assumption on what is ingrained in their “collective memories.”

You mean the African-Americans who are voting for the party of Bull Connor and Lester Maddox instead of the party of Abraham Lincoln?

And don’t Hispanics also have a culture of grievance? Haven’t we been talking about the Reconquista, for example? What is that but a well-known and recently-created Mexican grievance about a historical event that’s over a hundred and fifty years old?

The Reconquista is a fringe idea that even the Democrats aren’t going to embrace. The libs are great panderers but support for secession is beyond even them.

And don’t all Hispanics willingly line up to be part of the victim culture? Do you see any of them turning down affirmative action, for example, because they willingly came to this country? I don’t.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 1:03 AM

All of them? That’s a bold statement.

alchemist19 on April 3, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 1:19 AM

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 1:22 AM

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 1:37 AM

The thing that stands out to me is the spike in support during the Bush 43 elections. It wasn’t majority support by any means but he did better than anyone before him and anyone since, even in elections that were tight with the general electorate as opposed to less impressive showing by previous Republican candidates in elections that were national landslides. What that says is that that group is reachable. The logical course of action then would be to find out what worked. do more of it and see if we can build on it because if we can’t we’re dead.

alchemist19 on April 3, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 1:48 AM

Ah yes, the great Loss of California because of Immigration! story. I’ve heard it before. But is there any truth to it and does it stand up to scrutiny? Let’s check, shall we?

What would California look like without all the immigration? Would it still be the great red state that voted Republican six times in a row, or at the very least a purple state we could make the Democrats fight for if all those darn immigrants hadn’t shown up and ruined the place? Sadly the answer is “No.” Let’s run the numbers.

Just to help you out, I’ve negotiated against myself. Instead of just worrying about immigrants, let’s instead subtract the entire Hispanic population and left behind the whites, the blacks and the Asians. The exit polls that have been done in the state over the last three election cycles break it down by race so what we can do with a little simple arithmetic is subtract out the entire Hispanic vote and scale up the others proportionately to see what the state vote breakdown would look like if there were not only no immigration in the last 25 years, but no Hispanics at all. I ran the numbers and if I’m here telling you about them, I think you can guess how it worked out. Obama still beats Romney by double digits, he still beats McCain by double digits, and Kerry edges Bush by about five instead of the ten points he actually won by. The state still looks pretty blue to me even with no Latinos at all.

alchemist19 on April 3, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Alchemist19,

Are you deliberately yanking on my chain by providing a link to a Latino Decisions poll?

Find some objective and professional polling source to make your points, not a partisan outfit vouched for by Matthew Ygeslias and that demonstrates a talent for deliberate obfuscation.

My Gallup poll was clear: Nearly 90 percent of Latinos do not consider immigration their most important issue. Yes, that doesn’t mean they don’t consider immigration important. But if as many Latinos consider the federal budget deficit as important as immigration, then you’re obviously not going to make much headway with that demographic when the Democrats still provide everything we can provide to Latino voters (including immigration reform) and more.

And because I have to keep repeating it, I don’t support enfranchising illegals. Heck, if anything legalizing them might move them towards conservatism.

No, it wouldn’t. It didn’t in 1986 and it won’t today.

Right now if you’re illegal and working for cash under the table you’re not paying any taxes and you’re going to the emergency room for your health care at our expense. Legalize and let them get a taste of paying Barack Obama’s tax rates, and deal with Barack Obama’s health care program with all its mandate and see if that changes their tune a bit.

Seriously, are you an idiot? Because only an idiot would entertain this proposition.

Any illegal accepting cash under the table is not going to make enough money to pay income taxes or pay for his emergency care after he’s legalized. But he will have the right to suck up more state resources. He will have the right to bring more of his poor family over here. He’ll have the right to get Obamacare.

Blockhead.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Alchemist 19,

You said that “[siding with the little guy] doesn’t seem to be a widely held belief that crosses other previously oppressed ethnic or national groups, and that’s probably a good thing for us [Republicans].”

So I mentioned that other ethnic groups (blacks, Hispanics) also used their memories of oppression to side with the party of the little guy.

To which you’ve responded:

You mean the African-Americans who are voting for the party of Bull Connor and Lester Maddox instead of the party of Abraham Lincoln?

Yes, and now the sons and daughters of Bull Conner and Lester Maddox are voting Republican, leaving African-American voters to stay with the political party which has always represented those who are outsiders to the American experience – i.e., the Democratic Party.

The Reconquista is a fringe idea that even the Democrats aren’t going to embrace. The libs are great panderers but support for secession is beyond even them.

Whether supporting Reconquista is fringe is not the point. Even those Democrats who are opposed to it still refer to historical injustices against Mexicans and other Hispanics to support ethnic entitlements like AA. Reconquista is an extreme illustration, an extreme example, of that same idea at work.

That’s what makes your point about the Jews stupid. You claimed that Jewish-Americans have a memory of oppression and use it to support the Democratic Party and its liberal goals, but then you tried to pretend that this same idea wasn’t applicable to other ethnic groups in America, when of course it very much is.

All of them? That’s a bold statement.

I meant all Hispanic groups – from Mexicans to Chileans, from Cubans to Argentines.

Name a single Hispanic group which has tried to argue, “Yes we’re Hispanic, but we don’t think we deserve these ethnic benefits that America has been so kind as to offer up to our classification. So we’ll pass on them. Thank you very much.”

Don’t spend all day racking your brain on this question.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Alchemist 19,

The thing that stands out to me is the spike in support during the Bush 43 elections.

Bush 43 didn’t get a “spike” in his first run. He won a share of the Hispanic vote (35 percent) that was about average for a GOP presidential candidate over the last forty years. Reagan did better in 1980 even with a serious third party candidate in the race, and Bush’s father in 1988 and John McCain weren’t that far off Dubya’s mark in their presidential runs.

In Bush’s second run, he did much better, garnering the largest percentage of the Hispanic vote ever for a GOP presidential candidate. But keep in mind that 44 percent is not accurate. 40 percent is the correct figure. And Bush had to use big government to get the number up that high. That is, he used the government as a racial spoils system.

In brief, he acted like a Democrat. That’s not sustainable. Democrats will always be better Democrats than Republicans will be Democrats.

BTW, the share of the Hispanic for GOP presidential candidates varies from around 20 to 40 percent and averages 30 percent. That’s not a huge variance. And even at the top end, it’s not beneficial for the GOP if Hispanics keep growing as fast as they have over the last thirty years. I’d rather earn 20 percent of a voting block that comprises only one percent of the electorate than have to worry about getting 40 percent of a voting block that comprises ten percent of the electorate – as long as the majority of the rest of the electorate is favorable to me.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 9:54 PM

It wasn’t majority support by any means but he did better than anyone before him and anyone since, even in elections that were tight with the general electorate as opposed to less impressive showing by previous Republican candidates in elections that were national landslides.

Here’s why it doesn’t matter.

Look at the two swing states of Nevada and Colorado in the last presidential election. Romney lost those states to Obama, and Bush won both states against Kerry in 2004. Both have large and growing Hispanic populations.

But what if Romney had earned Bush’s 2004 share of the Hispanic vote in both states? Surely he would have won, right? I mean, isn’t that what all this crap you’re peddling is about?

Before you answer, I suggest you take a close look at the numbers by using CNN exits polls. Romney still loses both Nevada and Colorado in 2012 if he earns Bush’s share of the Hispanic vote in 2004.

Yes, you heard that right. If Bush was running in 2012 instead of Romney and earned the same numbers among Hispanic voters, he would have still lost Colorado and Nevada (although he would’ve won Florida). And if Romney was running in 2004, he would have won those two states (but not Florida) even with his 2012 numbers among Hispanic voters.

How is that possible? Because the absolute increase in the number of Hispanic voters swamped most of the gains Bush made among them in 2004.

*****

And that’s why your strategy is so stupid. It’s mathematically illiterate. The increase in Hispanic voters that you are advocating overcomes any likely gains we can possibly make among them.

Look carefully at this example: If the non-Hispanic electorate favors the GOP candidate 51 to 49, and the Hispanic electorate favors the Democratic candidate 70 to 30, I still win if the Hispanic population is only one percent of the electorate.

Result:

GOP candidate – 50.8%

Democratic candidate – 49.2%

******

But what happens to our race when the Hispanic electorate increases to 10 percent of the total voting public? But this time the GOP candidate wins 40 percent of the Hispanic share of the vote rather than just 30 percent.

Result:

GOP candidate – 49.9%

Democratic candidate – 50.1%

Our GOP candidate lost ! Even though he gained a larger share of the Hispanic vote !

That’s what makes your strategy so stupid, so mathematically illiterate. You focus on the numerator, but not the denominator. You continue to help recruit more Democrats, which means running up the hill in the future is only going to get harder and harder and harder. That’s basically what’s been happening over the last thirty years.

The logical course of action then would be to find out what worked. do more of it and see if we can build on it because if we can’t we’re dead.

The logical course is for you to realize that the GOP hasn’t won an easy election in over twenty-five years and is averaging less than 45 percent of the electorate over the last six presidential elections.

Focus on strengthening your natural constituencies and stop focusing on recruiting more Democrats to the polls.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 9:58 PM

Test

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 11:06 PM

Removing links to test.

Alchemist19,

Just to help you out, I’ve negotiated against myself. Instead of just worrying about immigrants, let’s instead subtract the entire Hispanic population and left behind the whites, the blacks and the Asians.

Instead of worrying about immigrants? That was the whole point of my comment about California: that immigration has changed its politics. Are Asians not immigrants?

Yes, let’s look at the exit polls, but this time let’s consider them without Asians, which is one of the fastest-growing immigrant groups in the country, and also without “others.”

Here is the full California exit poll for the 2004 presidential election.

Whites go from 65 percent of the state’s electorate to 91.5 percent. Blacks go from 6 percent of the state’s electorate to 8.5 percent.

Bush won the white vote 51 to 47, and lost the black vote 18 to 81.

So 91.5 * 51% + 8.5 * 18% = 48.2% versus Kerry’s 91.5 * 47% + 8.5 * 81% = 49.9%

Bush – 48.2

Kerry – 49.9

So California in 2004 becomes a swing state, returning to the “purple” condition I earlier described.

Yeah, Republicans didn’t win it, but then they weren’t trying to win it that year, were they? And Democrats are now forced to spend money on protecting the state rather than ignoring it because they know there is no chance they’ll ever lose it.

You might complain that my analysis leaves out Hispanic and Asian voters that were already here in the eighties. That’s true. But there was also a lot of white flight in the nineties and oughties that removed voters who would’ve still been in the state if immigration hadn’t caused them – most of whom were Republicans – to leave. So it’s a wash for you at best.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 11:13 PM

Obama would’ve clobbered McCain in 2008 but then that was a year when Republicans deserved to lose in purple states. So let’s skip ahead to 2012.

Here’s the exit poll for the state that year.

White voters go from 55 percent of the state’s electorate to 87 percent. Blacks go from 8 percent of the state’s electorate to 13 percent.

Romney won the white vote 53 to 45, and lost the black vote 4 to 96.

So 87 * 53% + 13 * 4% = 46.6% versus Obama’s 87 * 45% + 13 * 96% = 51.6%

Result:

Romney – 46.6%

Obama – 51.6%

Again, the state is very close. In a national election Romney lost by four points, he loses California by just five – about the same as Colorado, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. California is a swing state again.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 11:14 PM

For some reason, Hot Air didn’t allow me to link to the CNN exit polls for 2004 and 2012 for the state of California, so I’ll have to trust Alchemist19 to find them for himself.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 11:16 PM

Alchemist19,

Are you deliberately yanking on my chain by providing a link to a Latino Decisions poll?

Find some objective and professional polling source to make your points, not a partisan outfit vouched for by Matthew Ygeslias and that demonstrates a talent for deliberate obfuscation.

My Gallup poll was clear: Nearly 90 percent of Latinos do not consider immigration their most important issue. Yes, that doesn’t mean they don’t consider immigration important. But if as many Latinos consider the federal budget deficit as important as immigration, then you’re obviously not going to make much headway with that demographic when the Democrats still provide everything we can provide to Latino voters (including immigration reform) and more.

So you’re conceding my point that just because something isn’t your top issue it still can’t influence your vote (i.e.: if the economy is #1 but a candidate has an unacceptable position on defense or abortion or some other issue they can still lose your vote). Excellent!

Seriously, are you an idiot? Because only an idiot would entertain this proposition.

Any illegal accepting cash under the table is not going to make enough money to pay income taxes or pay for his emergency care after he’s legalized. But he will have the right to suck up more state resources. He will have the right to bring more of his poor family over here. He’ll have the right to get Obamacare.

Blockhead.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM

You seem to be an intelligent person so I’m miffed that you’re missing my point so badly.

If you legalize an illegal worker then the tax-free cash transactions under the table should stop and they’ll start paying taxes – FICA at the very least – instead of being a negative who sucks up government services instead of enjoying them without contributing to the tax base like they’re doing now.

alchemist19 on April 4, 2014 at 12:59 AM

Alchemist 19,

You said that “[siding with the little guy] doesn’t seem to be a widely held belief that crosses other previously oppressed ethnic or national groups, and that’s probably a good thing for us [Republicans].”

So I mentioned that other ethnic groups (blacks, Hispanics) also used their memories of oppression to side with the party of the little guy.

I echoed a point I had heard from Jewish writers that their stubborn liberalism was because they recall being oppressed in their history, not because they’re being repressed today. The Jacksons, Sharptons and Jeremiah Wrights of the world are out there telling African-Americans they are still being repressed today. There’s a difference.

As for other repressed ethnic and national groups, the aforementioned Catholics come to mind as a group that experienced discrimination. The Irish unquestionably did. Today people of Irish descent don’t latch on to the Democrats because they remember their repression the way the Jews I’ve read claim their people do.

Yes, and now the sons and daughters of Bull Conner and Lester Maddox are voting Republican, leaving African-American voters to stay with the political party which has always represented those who are outsiders to the American experience – i.e., the Democratic Party.

Probably because, as I said before, the media is full of black leaders screaming about repression, and the Democrat party has been at it for decades scapegoating America and making it seem like the deck is stacked. If we don’t get in front of this and the same thing happens with Hispanics we’re screwed.

Whether supporting Reconquista is fringe is not the point. Even those Democrats who are opposed to it still refer to historical injustices against Mexicans and other Hispanics to support ethnic entitlements like AA. Reconquista is an extreme illustration, an extreme example, of that same idea at work.

That’s what makes your point about the Jews stupid. You claimed that Jewish-Americans have a memory of oppression and use it to support the Democratic Party and its liberal goals, but then you tried to pretend that this same idea wasn’t applicable to other ethnic groups in America, when of course it very much is

Yet it’s not universal. Jews claim they remember old repression but as far as I can tell the Irish don’t.

I meant all Hispanic groups – from Mexicans to Chileans, from Cubans to Argentines.

Name a single Hispanic group which has tried to argue, “Yes we’re Hispanic, but we don’t think we deserve these ethnic benefits that America has been so kind as to offer up to our classification. So we’ll pass on them. Thank you very much.”

Don’t spend all day racking your brain on this question.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 8:36 PM

This is absurd. Are you being critical because Mexicans or Chileans or Cubans haven’t elected someone to speak for them as a group and turn down government benefits? Who exactly in those groups is going to argue for that? Who has the authority to do that? If you’re going to be critical of groups for not doing what you’re indicting them for not having done then what you’re complaining about has to be a realistic thing. What you’re pining for is laughable.

alchemist19 on April 4, 2014 at 1:10 AM

Bush 43 didn’t get a “spike” in his first run. He won a share of the Hispanic vote (35 percent) that was about average for a GOP presidential candidate over the last forty years. Reagan did better in 1980 even with a serious third party candidate in the race, and Bush’s father in 1988 and John McCain weren’t that far off Dubya’s mark in their presidential runs.

Reagan in 1980 did attempt to court the Hispanic vote, and was pretty much the first Republican candidate to do so specifically because Hispanics were such a small segment of the population at that time. Bush’s performances, even if the 2004 number is inaccurate, rank as #1 and #3 of recent time. Clearly he was doing something right.

In Bush’s second run, he did much better, garnering the largest percentage of the Hispanic vote ever for a GOP presidential candidate. But keep in mind that 44 percent is not accurate. 40 percent is the correct figure. And Bush had to use big government to get the number up that high. That is, he used the government as a racial spoils system.

In brief, he acted like a Democrat. That’s not sustainable. Democrats will always be better Democrats than Republicans will be Democrats.

Bush acted like a Democrat by running Spanish-language ads about abortion? I don’t quite know what to say about that.

BTW, the share of the Hispanic for GOP presidential candidates varies from around 20 to 40 percent and averages 30 percent. That’s not a huge variance. And even at the top end, it’s not beneficial for the GOP if Hispanics keep growing as fast as they have over the last thirty years. I’d rather earn 20 percent of a voting block that comprises only one percent of the electorate than have to worry about getting 40 percent of a voting block that comprises ten percent of the electorate – as long as the majority of the rest of the electorate is favorable to me.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 9:54 PM

But you can’t ignore the fact that they are here and they keep getting to be a larger share of the electorate. I’m as in favor of border security as you are, and for the eventybillionth time, I don’t think people who are here illegally should be granted citizenship and allowed to vote in our elections, but the more we look like or set ourselves up to easily be painted as anti-Hispanic the bigger a problem we are going to have.

alchemist19 on April 4, 2014 at 1:18 AM

Here’s why it doesn’t matter.

Look at the two swing states of Nevada and Colorado in the last presidential election. Romney lost those states to Obama, and Bush won both states against Kerry in 2004. Both have large and growing Hispanic populations.

But what if Romney had earned Bush’s 2004 share of the Hispanic vote in both states? Surely he would have won, right? I mean, isn’t that what all this crap you’re peddling is about?

I never said that.

Remember back when you said?:

You’re not smart, but you’re smart enough to know you shouldn’t say anything you can’t prove.

Pincher Martin on April 1, 2014 at 10:27 PM

That was directed at me and the part about me being smart enough to know I shouldn’t say anything I can’t prove is true. I don’t know if Romney would have won Nevada or Colorado so I didn’t say that. You said that I’m not smart but you still gave me credit for having enough base intelligence to not say anything I can’t prove. You, on the other hand, stuck your foot in your mouth with the “We lost California because of immigrants!” stuff that I nuked and it appears you’re either trying to distract or drag me down to your level. As far as tactics go it’s an unsurprising as it is ineffective.

Wait a minute. If I’m not smart but am still smart enough to not say anything I can’t prove but then you apparently aren’t smart enough not to say something that you can’t prove does that mean then that not only are you not smart, that you’re also even less smart than I am? I’ve not directly insulted your intelligence so far, at least as far as I can remember, but should I have been?

Hmmm. Interesting.

Anyways, moving on…..

Before you answer, I suggest you take a close look at the numbers by using CNN exits polls. Romney still loses both Nevada and Colorado in 2012 if he earns Bush’s share of the Hispanic vote in 2004.

Yes, you heard that right. If Bush was running in 2012 instead of Romney and earned the same numbers among Hispanic voters, he would have still lost Colorado and Nevada (although he would’ve won Florida). And if Romney was running in 2004, he would have won those two states (but not Florida) even with his 2012 numbers among Hispanic voters.

How is that possible? Because the absolute increase in the number of Hispanic voters swamped most of the gains Bush made among them in 2004.

I don’t feel compelled to attack your rebuttal of something I never said.

And that’s why your strategy is so stupid. It’s mathematically illiterate. The increase in Hispanic voters that you are advocating overcomes any likely gains we can possibly make among them.

For the eventybillion and first time, I’m not advocating an increase in Hispanic voters! I’m recognizing the reality that such an increase is going to happen whether we like it or not and I’m advocating we try to reach out to them rather than stand on the tracks and ignore the fact a train is coming.

Look carefully at this example: If the non-Hispanic electorate favors the GOP candidate 51 to 49, and the Hispanic electorate favors the Democratic candidate 70 to 30, I still win if the Hispanic population is only one percent of the electorate.

Result:

GOP candidate – 50.8%

Democratic candidate – 49.2%

******

But what happens to our race when the Hispanic electorate increases to 10 percent of the total voting public? But this time the GOP candidate wins 40 percent of the Hispanic share of the vote rather than just 30 percent.

Result:

GOP candidate – 49.9%

Democratic candidate – 50.1%

Our GOP candidate lost ! Even though he gained a larger share of the Hispanic vote !

You and reality appear to have parted ways. Hispanics are already 10% of the electorate and if we deport every illegal immigrant then that 10% of the electorate who are all not only here legally, but are citizens, will all still be here. Closing our eyes and pretending this situation does not exist does not make it go away.

That’s what makes your strategy so stupid, so mathematically illiterate. You focus on the numerator, but not the denominator. You continue to help recruit more Democrats, which means running up the hill in the future is only going to get harder and harder and harder. That’s basically what’s been happening over the last thirty years.

I’m not increasing the voter pool by one single person! For the eleventybillion and second time!

The logical course is for you to realize that the GOP hasn’t won an easy election in over twenty-five years and is averaging less than 45 percent of the electorate over the last six presidential elections.

Focus on strengthening your natural constituencies and stop focusing on recruiting more Democrats to the polls.

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 9:58 PM

I’m not for giving anyone new the right to vote, for the eleventybillion and third time! I’m trying to take from the Democrats a club they’re using to beat us with a group of voters who might otherwise be reachable.

alchemist19 on April 4, 2014 at 1:29 AM

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 11:13 PM

Pincher Martin on April 3, 2014 at 11:14 PM

WARNING! WARNING! YOU ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE GOALPOSTS! STEP AWAY FROM THE GOALPOSTS!

Sure Asians voting today either immigrated themselves and became citizens or are the descendants of people who were immigrants at some point in the past but if you want to get that technical then the same could be said of all the white people so by that same logic if you then subtract them too and… let me run the numbers here… we’re doomed!

Remember the topic here is illegal immigration and what to do about illegal immigrants. Asians aren’t really all that big a chunk of the total number of illegal immigrants in the US. It makes California look less blue if you take all the people of Asian descent out but if we’re looking at strictly illegal immigration…. you seem to be trying to make chicken salad out of chicken poo and while I might not be all that smart, I’m smart enough not to let you get away with it.

As to white flight, I don’t doubt that there’s some of that that goes on. But if they’re all Republican like you say then whatever state they relocate to then becomes redder when they show up, California’s population – and electoral clout – drops and their new home picks it up. That helps keep places like Arizona red.

Or is your point that California would be a better place if only everyone there was white?

alchemist19 on April 4, 2014 at 1:34 AM

Alchemist19,

So you’re conceding my point that just because something isn’t your top issue it still can’t [sic] influence your vote (i.e.: if the economy is #1 but a candidate has an unacceptable position on defense or abortion or some other issue they can still lose your vote). Excellent!

There’s no concession. Of course other issues can influence a person’s vote even when those issues aren’t a top priority. I never said anything to the contrary. But since you can’t identify any issues where Republicans might win among Hispanics – and very few where they might win among Asians – the point you wish to emphasize is meaningless.

Republicans aren’t distinguishing themselves from Democrats by promoting something that the Democratic Party already promotes. A political party doesn’t make itself more attractive to a group by pushing a policy that the other main political party is already pushing. A party doesn’t become more attractive by saying, “us, too.”

A party makes itself more attractive by giving a group something the other party can’t give them.

So Republicans have no leverage. We have no issues where Hispanics say, “Yeah, that’s what I want” and the other party is helpless to respond. That leaves your only alternative to become more like the Democratic Party and to leverage away your political future by allowing more Democrats into the country.

That’s the political strategy of a nitwit. I can understand why Democrats are for it, but when Republicans like you join in, you prove yourself to be a member of what liberals like to call “the stupid party.”

Pincher Martin on April 4, 2014 at 6:43 PM

continued…

If you legalize an illegal worker then the tax-free cash transactions under the table should stop and they’ll start paying taxes – FICA at the very least – instead of being a negative who sucks up government services instead of enjoying them without contributing to the tax base like they’re doing now.

Stop with your nonsense. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

Illegal aliens don’t benefit from the services FICA pays for. But legal residents do.

In fact, many illegal aliens already pay FICA taxes and can’t expect to receive any benefits for their contributions. This vitiates the supposed benefit of your hypothetical, which is based on the pretense that there is a huge budgetary surplus to be derived from the legalization of low-wage, cash-only workers.

What you’re proposing is so obviously stupid that it would be the same as if you denied Newton’s law of gravity. What you’re saying is that U.S. budget will derive more benefit from the introduction of a shitload of off-the-books, low-wage workers who are legalized, because apparently you’re stupid enough to believe that those kinds of workers, once legal, will only contribute to the system and never take out.

Go sell that silly shit somewhere else.

Pincher Martin on April 4, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Continued…

I echoed a point I had heard from Jewish writers that their stubborn liberalism was because they recall being oppressed in their history, not because they’re being repressed today. The Jacksons, Sharptons and Jeremiah Wrights of the world are out there telling African-Americans they are still being repressed today. There’s a difference.

As far as partisan politics is concerned, that’s a distinction without difference.

None of these ethnic groups are anywhere close to voting for Republicans. They all identify as liberal, big government groups. They all have historical reasons for not trusting whites or white gentiles.

The commonality they share is that Republicans can’t win them over. Republicans like to talk about winning them over, but they can’t. And the reason they can’t is because all those groups are really quite comfortable being Democrats.

I have nothing against a Republican candidate who tries to win a slightly larger percentage of some group which is typically not supportive of our party. But I draw the line when the price for winning that support means an increase in the number of people who are hostile to my politics.

Pincher Martin on April 4, 2014 at 6:47 PM

continued…

As for other repressed ethnic and national groups, the aforementioned Catholics come to mind as a group that experienced discrimination. The Irish unquestionably did. Today people of Irish descent don’t latch on to the Democrats because they remember their repression the way the Jews I’ve read claim their people do.

Yeah, tell it to the Kennedys. Irish immigration to the United States turned the state of Massachusetts – once home to ultra-conservative Republicans like Calvin Coolidge and Henry Cabot Lodge – blue , which it remains to this day. Boston hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1930. Ted Kennedy was mindful of his Catholic Irish heritage and the discrimination against the Irish when he led the effort to open up immigration in 1965.

And read this source:

”The Irish American community harbors a deeply held belief that it was the victim of systematic job discrimination in America, and that the discrimination was done publicly in highly humiliating fashion through signs that announced “Help Wanted: No Irish Need Apply.” This “NINA” slogan could have been a metaphor for their troubles—akin to tales that America was a “golden mountain” or had “streets paved with gold.” But the Irish insist that the signs really existed and prove the existence of widespread discrimination and prejudice.

The fact that Irish vividly “remember” NINA signs is a curious historical puzzle. There are no contemporary or retrospective accounts of a specific sign at a specific location. No particular business enterprise is named as a culprit. No historian, archivist, or museum curator has ever located one; no photograph or drawing exists. No other ethnic group complained about being singled out by comparable signs. Only Irish Catholics have reported seeing the sign in America—no Protestant, no Jew, no non-Irish Catholic has reported seeing one. This is especially strange since signs were primarily directed toward these others: the signs said that employment was available here and invited Yankees, French-Canadians, Italians and any other non-Irish to come inside and apply. The business literature, both published and unpublished, never mentions NINA or any policy remotely like it. The newspapers and magazines are silent. The courts are silent. There is no record of an angry youth tossing a brick through the window that held such a sign. Have we not discovered all of the signs of an urban legend?”

So it looks like Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright’s invention of ongoing discrimination has a distinguished lineage.

*****

Catholics were stalwart Democrats for over a century. Many Protestants hated Catholic immigration in the nineteenth century because Catholics were frequently supporters of slavery. You could understand why abolitionists would look askance at immigration when many of the immigrants were pro-slavery, and the Catholic Church at the time was widely considered an enemy of freedom.

Catholics also later strongly supported progressivism and the New Deal. The Catholic governor of New York, Al Smith, is often considered one of the foremost proponents of progressive legislation that would form the backbone of the New Deal.

So, yes, white Catholics today are finally – finally ! – voting for the Republican Party. But look at the damage they caused to freedom from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s. And even after joining the party, they didn’t take William F. Buckley as their ideal. They still liked big government.

So if Catholics are your model for today’s immigrant groups, then it’s clear they are no model at all.

Pincher Martin on April 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM

This is absurd. Are you being critical because Mexicans or Chileans or Cubans haven’t elected someone to speak for them as a group and turn down government benefits?

Why not? Can’t they form conservative groups just as easily as they form liberal groups? Why is it that these ethnic groups (La Raza, NAACP, etc.) always push for liberal political ends?

You have no good answers for these questions because the truth is that most people in these ethnic groups genuinely like the racial politics that these groups push.

In fact, I’d be happy if a group of any of these ethnicities informally coalesced around a conservative candidate who argued counterpoints to the typical policies advocated by La Raza or the NAACP. Instead, we Republicans either get the kind of minority spokesmen who are immediately repudiated by both most of their co-ethnics and the GOP establishment (like Ward Connelly or Herman Cain) or we get the kind of spokesmen who spend a lot of their time attacking Republicans who hold perfectible respectable conservative policies (Colin Powell who says that many Republicans hate Obama because of his race) or fervently promoting anti-conservative policies on race (Colin Powell or Alberto Gonzales, for example, on affirmative action).

It’s disgusting, and the only absurdity here is in you failing to realize that. Clearly something is wrong when the party of conservatism is unable to effectively combat the racial spoils system in a period of rapid demographic change.

Pincher Martin on April 4, 2014 at 6:54 PM

continued…

Reagan in 1980 did attempt to court the Hispanic vote, and was pretty much the first Republican candidate to do so specifically because Hispanics were such a small segment of the population at that time.

Richard Nixon invented the term “Hispanic” for government use in the hope it would help him out at the polls. He also supported bilingual education. That was the first of what would be many times that Republicans fooled themselves about how they could win the Hispanic vote.

Ford caused a stir in 1976 when he tried to eat a tamale unhusked at a campaign event.

Before Nixon and Ford? Hispanics were too rare to worry about. (Really, the truth is that they were too small to worry about even then.)

After Nixon and Ford, these Republican presidential candidates made serious attempts to court the Hispanic vote: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John McCain. For their troubles, these candidates averaged a 33 percent share of the Hispanic vote in their first presidential runs.

Bush acted like a Democrat by running Spanish-language ads about abortion? I don’t quite know what to say about that.

I didn’t mention abortion. I’m guessing you aren’t aware of Bush’s promotion of a minority housing program to ensure Hispanics and blacks need not worry about burdens like a downpayment on a home. Why do’t you google it and watch the video of Bush talking about his program in 2002.

Say, how did that program work out for the economy?

Bush did the same thing with education He supported big government programs with a special minority twist.

What? You thought Bush won that extra sliver of the Hispanic vote by just being nice to them and speaking in Spanish? Are you that daft?

Pincher Martin on April 4, 2014 at 6:57 PM

continued…

But you can’t ignore the fact that they are here and they keep getting to be a larger share of the electorate.

I’m not ignoring it. I’m fighting like hell to keep the fate of the United States from becoming that of California.

I’m as in favor of border security as you are, and for the eventybillionth time, I don’t think people who are here illegally should be granted citizenship and allowed to vote in our elections, but the more we look like or set ourselves up to easily be painted as anti-Hispanic the bigger a problem we are going to have.

You’re the only one here describing this effort as anti-Hispanic, and in that sense you’re a steady ally of the Democrats who argue much the same thing.

I’m not anti-anything. I’m pro-American. I wish Hispanics well in whatever country they hail from.

I never said that.

I don’t feel compelled to attack your rebuttal of something I never said.

But built around your desire to go soft on illegal immigration and win a larger share of the Hispanic vote must be an implicit belief that it helps the GOP win elections.

Otherwise, why are we talking about this at all?

You, on the other hand, stuck your foot in your mouth with the “We lost California because of immigrants!” stuff that I nuked and it appears you’re either trying to distract or drag me down to your level. As far as tactics go it’s an unsurprising as it is ineffective.

How do you nuke it? By looking at three exit polls for the last three presidential elections – two of which show a near tie in the state without the groups associated with immigrants?

You and reality appear to have parted ways. Hispanics are already 10% of the electorate and if we deport every illegal immigrant then that 10% of the electorate who are all not only here legally, but are citizens, will all still be here. Closing our eyes and pretending this situation does not exist does not make it go away.

You’re missing the point of the exercise, which is that an increase in the number of Hispanic voters can overcome an increase in the GOP share of their vote.

REPUBLICANS HAVE TO SLOW DOWN IMMIGRATION OR THEIR PARTY IS DEAD AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE POLITICS OF SMALL GOVERNMENT.

It’s that simple.

I’m not increasing the voter pool by one single person! For the eleventybillion and second time!

But you are. Legal residents have kids, and those kids are automatically counted as residents. Your proposal, which has already been rejected by the Democrats by the way, would simply slow down the inevitable. It wouldn’t stop it.

You also haven’t shown any inclination to explain how you’ll strengthen border security, which means we’re still going to have to revisit this question again of what to do with illegals a decade down the road.

Pincher Martin on April 4, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Remember the topic here is illegal immigration and what to do about illegal immigrants.

Not for me. I stated earlier that the GOP has to lower *all* immigration levels – not just illegals, but for legal migrants as well. It also has to end the family chain migration and lottery system that brings so many lower quality immigrants into the country.

Asians aren’t really all that big a chunk of the total number of illegal immigrants in the US. It makes California look less blue if you take all the people of Asian descent out but if we’re looking at strictly illegal immigration…. you seem to be trying to make chicken salad out of chicken poo and while I might not be all that smart, I’m smart enough not to let you get away with it.

I don’t think your smarts as quite as high as self-advertised, but I admire how hard you’re working to convince me otherwise.

As to white flight, I don’t doubt that there’s some of that that goes on.

You don’t doubt? Have you read the news at all in the last two decades?

But if they’re all Republican like you say then whatever state they relocate to then becomes redder when they show up, California’s population – and electoral clout – drops and their new home picks it up. That helps keep places like Arizona red.

The problem with your theory is that migration between states can’t keep up with immigration from outside the U.S. The Californians who move to Texas and Arizona, for example, still can’t keep up with Mexicans moving into those states.

So the political direction is still the same. All blue.

Or is your point that California would be a better place if only everyone there was white?

It would certainly be a more Republican place.

You might hate the fact that the GOP is primarily the party of whites, just as the Democratic Party is primarily the party of non-whites (and Jews).

Get over it. We have enough ethnic variety here in the U.S. to last us several lifetimes. Even diversity mongers can afford to shut off the spigot without worrying that America is too white bread.

Fully one-quarter of California’s population is made up of people who weren’t even born in the United States. How many more do we need?

Pincher Martin on April 4, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7