Darryl Fears of the Washington Post offers "Republicans Lost Ground With Latinos In Midterms". As might be expected, it's so full of misleading statements, superficial analysis, hidden agendas, and hidden assumptions that a full treatment would be novel-length:
...Latinos [gave] the GOP only 30 percent of their vote as strident House immigration legislation inspired by Republicans and tough-talking campaign ads by conservative candidates roiled the community. It was a 10-point drop from the lowest estimated Latino vote percentage two years ago, and a 14-point drop from the highest...
Of course, GOP votes from other groups were down as well. The percentage drop may be have been greater among Latinos, but that doesn't mean that it had anything to do with immigration or related ads. And, the idea that there could be a "community" is identity politics at its finest, but is untrue since, for instance, there are obvious differences between Cuban-Americans in Miami and Mexican-Americans in Texas colonias. And, not all of those "tough-talking" ads were from "conservatives"; perhaps that's why he used that word and not "Republicans". And, while a few of the ads may have gone overboard, if "the community" objects to enforcement of our laws, perhaps we have a deeper problem that needs to be addressed. And, needless to say, HR4437 wasn't "strident".
Then, he quotes "Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, formerly the New Democrat Network" as saying that the "Republican Party is hostile to Hispanics". Obviously, he's biased. And, just as obviously, that's false. Not even those GOP leaders that support our immigration laws are hostile to one ethnic group. They just oppose, for instance, those like Rosenberg who support massive illegal activity as an "ethnic thing".
Latinos by and large supported the millions of marchers who protested House immigration proposals in the spring, and there are recent signs that Republicans are working to bring them back to the party (via rightwing Cuban - and thus non-Chicano - Mel Martinez).
Those marches might have indeed had widespread support, and most Americans should consider that alarming. Those marching were doing so in support of illegal activity, and many were in fact foreign citizens making a show of force in our streets. Many of those marching seem to think that they have a right to move here at will, and some of those even called the U.S. their "homeland". And, some of the organizers of those marches have links to foreign governments and Mexico's PRD party.
[HR4437] would make it a felony to assist any illegal immigrant, frightening the Roman Catholic Church. It worried rights groups because it would step up enforcement that could cost illegal immigrants their jobs, homes and lives.
As far as I know, the Pope didn't weigh in on 4437. However, Cardinal Roger Mahony did pretend to be "frightened", but then later admitted he was full of it. As for those "rights" groups, perhaps they shouldn't be supporting illegal aliens working illegally. And, perhaps we shouldn't encourage banks to give loans to illegal aliens, since that ends up encouraging political corruption. As for the last, stepped-up enforcement would reduce such issues, since many fewer would try to come here. Those "rights" groups actually encourage people to try to cross, resulting in more tragedies than their would be if they discouraged them from trying to cross the desert in summer.
Don't expect Darryl Fears to do a deeper analysis of this issue, since he's simply an illegal immigration supporting hack.
Immigration · Mon, 11/20/2006 - 07:10 · Importance: 4