hispanic vote: Page 1
The video below has former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson saying that Texas senator Ted Cruz shouldn't be a considered a real Hispanic.
Transcript, bolding added:
Here's how (link):
If [11 million illegal aliens] had been on the voting rolls in 2012 and voted along the same lines as other Hispanic voters did last fall, President Barack Obama’s relatively narrow victory last fall would have been considerably wider, a POLITICO analysis showed.
In negotiations, when you show weakness and make weak demands, your opponents tend to take advantage of that.
Thus it is with the GOP quest for racial power (link):
Crazy Rand Paul fully supports amnesty, misleading, Hispandering, and reading poetry to do it - 03/19/13
Earlier today, Kentucky senator Rand Paul gave a pro-amnesty speech at the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that in some ways is even more shocking and more crazy than the pro-amnesty speeches George W Bush gave. In addition to being borderline nuts, Paul misleads and uses a string of pro-amnesty talking points just like his dad.
NCLR, SEIU, LULAC, NALEO flex their racial power and threaten Congress in new amnesty push - 12/12/12
When is ethnic nationalism and a completely race-based attitude to everything OK? When is the raw pursuit of racial power OK? When is it OK to make borderline threats against Members of Congress? When Hispanics do it, of course.
Here are some quick questions for GOP consultants, pundits, and other thought leaders. If you consult Republican politicians or are in a related field, please answer the questions below .
If that's not you, you can still help out by asking consultants the questions below.
If you're a consultant/pundit/etc., I'd like you to first take a look at these two approaches to Hispanic outreach:
Claim: Mitt Romney said he won't flip flop on immigration at millionaires' meeting (Murdoch, Blankfein, Home Depot, Univision, Giuliani) - 07/02/12
This is all just hearsay, but it would be interesting if it turns out to be true :
Mitt Romney last week told a private group of potential supporters and business and media elites, including Rupert Murdoch, that he was treading carefully around the issue of immigration to avoid looking like a "flip-flopper."
Increased immigration of Hispanics is a vital, urgent concern to Hispanic leaders: it means more money and power for them. Those leaders - together with those who want more immigration for other reasons - try to convince political candidates (such as Mitt Romney) that if only they'd go weak on immigration Hispanics would flock to support them, en masse.
Mitt Romney economic advisor Greg Mankiw posted a dumb joke about deporting seniors to his personal blog; see the clipping he posted below.
Of this, Glenn Thrush of the Politico says the following (link), thus ushering in the first part of what might be a long series of posts showing how much of a hack Thrush is:
Rather than spending time discussing why Fiorina is wrong, I encourage the readers of this site to go to Fund's appearances and ask him about this paragraph:
An issue that will give (Chuck DeVore) some traction in a primary is that Ms. Fiorina says she "probably" would have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, because most presidential Supreme Court nominees who are qualified deserve a presumption of support. One can argue with that position on substantive grounds, but it's probably smart politics in a general election given that California is 37% Hispanic.
The great majority of Hispanics in California are Mexican-American (or Mexican). Puerto Ricans make up only about 10% of U.S. Hispanics, and their percentage is probably higher in New York City than in California. And, while the two groups are Hispanic in the broad sense, the two groups aren't known for being close friends. For an example right from the WSJ's hometown, see September 6, 2003's "Little but Language in Common; Mexicans and Puerto Ricans Quarrel in East Harlem" from the New York Times (link).
Why is Fund assuming that Mexican-Americans would reflexively fall behind a Puerto Rican candidate? In fact, some Mexican-American leaders grumbled about a non-Mexican-American Hispanic being selected and Hispanics were generally in line with everyone else about the nomination. Why is Fund in effect supporting pan-Hispanic nationalism, just as Bill Richardson, Bob Menendez, and the National Council of La Raza do? Wouldn't it be better for the U.S. to oppose pan-ethnic nationalism and thereby take power away from Richardson, Menendez, the NCLR, and all the other far-left racial power advocates and organizations? And, why is Fund suggesting capitulation over the choice of someone who was a member of the NCLR, a board member of the equally far-left PRLDEF, and who showed herself to be highly ethno-centric?
The great Kos speaks (dailykos.com/story/2009/8/7/763043/-It-WAS-an-incredible-day-for-Latinos):
We have a wise Latina on the Supreme Court... Pat Buchanan pines for the America of the '50s, but the country has changed, and for the better... And while we Latinos celebrate Associate Justice Sotomayor's accomplishments, we have also take note of who tried to stand in her way... Nine Republicans voted to confirm... [aside from those retiring and the "Maine twins"] That leaves Alexander, Graham, and Lugar as the only other Republicans unwilling to alienate the nation's fastest growing ethnic demographic by casting a symbolic and doomed vote against the Supreme Court nominee with the most judicial experience in our nation's history. Props to them, but it didn't work. Latinos know the score.
He's basically saying Republicans have to do anything that Hispanics want. It's unfortunate that many Republicans buy into the same thing he's selling. (On the plus side, one of those who didn't vote for her is John McCain.)
After the excerpt above, he points out that a DailyKos poll (dailykos.com/weeklypoll/2009/7/30) shows that, when asked how they view the Republican Party, 11% of Latinos are unsure (just 4% are favorable and 85% are unfavorable). He obviously thinks the 11% is too high, and that's despite the fact that several Republicans did vote to (supposedly) give Hispanics what they want by voting for Sotomayor. The implication is that no matter how strongly Republicans pander, unless every single one of them does everything Latinos want, they won't get their votes. The downside of Kos' argument is that some might decide that pandering to those who won't respond isn't worth the effort.
"On the issue of the Hispanic voter, we have to do a lot more. We Republicans have to recruit and elect Hispanics to office... And I don't mean just because they're Hispanics, but they represent a big part of the growing population in America. And we have a lot of work to do there. And I am of the belief that unless we reverse the trend of Hispanic voter registration, we have a very, very deep hole that we've got to come out of."
The third sentence makes no sense: he wants them to be elected simply due to their race and in the hopes that undecideds will "vote their race". Which is exactly how the Democratic Party operates, except they're actually competent. Which means that - as pointed out many, many times here before - the Dems will always be able to undercut the GOP if they go further down the "vote your race" road. The Dem will always be more racially echt; the GOP will select someone who the Democrats will call a "Tio Taco"/"Uncle Tom". And, of course, by supporting massive immigration and race-based power, the GOP is digging their hole even deeper.
One way to deal with bad advice such as that offered by McCain is to help discredit the incompetent GOP consultant types who come up with such ideas, such as Mike Murphy.
McCain lashes out over leading on immigration "reform" and not getting "Hispanic vote"; not a moment of clarity - 04/03/09
John McCain sounds angry and frustrated that, despite the risks he took in pushing immigration reform, Hispanic voters flocked to Democrat Barack Obama in last year's presidential contest. McCain's raw emotions burst forth recently as he heatedly told Hispanic business leaders that they should now look to Obama, not him, to take the lead on immigration.
What follows is he said, she said hearsay. Whatever he said and however he said it, don't worry: the GOP will be back to pandering in no time without realizing that no matter how much they pander, the Democrats can always undercut them simply by pandering more. The GOP leadership clearly doesn't have the brainpower to be able to figure that out.
UPDATE: Matt Corley of ThinkProgress offers "Report: ‘Angry’ McCain Referred To Hispanics As ‘You People’ During Outreach Meeting" (thinkprogress.org/2009/04/03/mccain-hispanics-you-people). He only concentrates on the low-hanging fruit: the contention that McCain was angry and his supposed use of "you people", which Corley implies is a racial insult despite that being beyond a stretch. That post also contains several racist comments, such as "Old White Man, it’s long past time to step aside, get on that golf cart with Pappa Bush and ride away... PEACE".
John Amato of Crooks and Liars concentrates on the same childish aspects and also makes this absurd claim: "[McCain] did push the Bush immigration deal, but you know it was just response to the anger many Latinos felt over Sensenbrenner's HOUSE bill." That refers to HR4473, and it's completely wrong: McCain is part true believer, part corrupt hack who does the bidding of corrupt businesses; what he supported wasn't a response to anything other than that.
Both posts are from lightweights in both knowledge of this issue and influence, but they do illustrate how the Dems will always be able to undercut Republicans on this issue, no matter how hard the GOP panders. The only way to beat the Dems at that game would be to be more Dem than the Dems, but someone wouldn't be a Republican if they went that far. The GOP needs to play a different game using a different set of rules, a set designed to undercut the Dems. Unfortunately, the GOP is too dumb and corrupt to do that.
UPDATE 2: Dianna Parker of Media Matters for America uses the article to continue their tradition of misleading about McCain's position on immigration, saying (mediamatters.org/items/200904060003):
Yet, despite repeatedly referring to how McCain "buck[ed] his party on immigration" prior to 2008, at no point did the article address McCain's flip-flop on immigration reform during the 2008 presidential campaign. As a candidate, McCain said he would vote against his own comprehensive immigration bill if it came to the Senate floor, arguing that border security must be addressed before any other reforms.
McCain's supposed flip-flop was just a sleazy tactic he was using to get "reform". The idea that he was turning his back on "reform" is absurd. Prior to the election, saying things like the above could have been a completely disingenuous tactic to get McCain to hurt himself with the GOP base even more by trying to force him to come out again and say that he did eventually want "reform". Now it's just completely disingenuous. And, like the rest, it shows that the GOP just can't win as Dem Lite on this issue.
Clarissa Martinez of the National Council of La Raza (her bio at the first link) offers an offensive editorial called "Think Latinos are ambivalent about immigration?" (link). It's a response to an earlier editorial from Ira Mehlman (link), and it starts with this:
At the height of his hubris, Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)-- an anti-immigrant organization designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center -- decided that he is better qualified than Latino civil rights leaders to speak to Latino views. What's next, David Duke writing about African American views on affirmative action?
See their name's link for more on the SPLC. See the ethnic conformity for the "better qualified" bit. See hispanic civil rights for that part. As for the last sentence, if she'd written "Ward Connerly" that would have just been very inaccurate; the use of Duke is despicable.
...Coinciding with the rise in vitriol in the immigration debate, FBI statistics show a nearly 40% increase in hate crimes committed against Latinos between 2003 and 2008. The Southern Poverty Law Center attributes the 48% rise in the number of hate groups in the U.S. between 2000 and 2007 almost completely to anti-immigrant rhetoric.
The first sentence is based on the SPLC misleading about hate crime statistics. And, the "number of hate groups" represents the number of groups on the SPLC's list, it isn't some official or widely accepted figure. It was also obtained by adding non-"hate" groups to the list, and it almost assuredly reflects the SPLC's attempts to scare up donations by finding something to oppose as their original opponents wane.
At least 10 million Latinos turned out to vote on Nov. 4, a stunning increase from the approximately 7 million who voted in the 2004 general election.
And where immigration was concerned, Latinos supported the candidate that was more clearly in favor of reform. They did this during the primaries (Latinos were a deciding factor in Sen. John McCain's primary victory over other Republicans, delivering Florida at a crucial juncture of the campaign) and in the general election (They helped President Obama in key states such as Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia).
Why Hispanics mostly voted for Obama isn't known; not even a "Latino civil rights leader" is able to read minds.
In the absence of a thorough discussion of immigration during the general election at the presidential level, what informed the sensitivities of Latino voters on this issue was the overall tone of Republican candidates during the primaries and in races at the local level. McCain suffered the consequences of being a member of a party that wholeheartedly embraced anti-immigrant rhetoric and the scapegoating of Latinos to score political points. There are, of course, some notable exceptions, including McCain. The party's strategy backfired
She continues her mind-reading, and ignores the fact that the GOP leadership was more than willing to completely pander to Hispanics at every opportunity and that there are no national GOP politicians who "embraced anti-immigrant rhetoric and the scapegoating of Latinos", unless one defines those terms extremely broadly to include a fact-based discussion of the impacts of massive/illegal immigration.
She then discusses some pro-border Republicans who lost their races; finding counter-examples is left as an exercise. Then, she finishes with this:
The next time Mehlman decides to chime in, he should stick to discussing what he knows best: how his group has stood in the way of our nation solving its immigration problem.
Earlier she said that Mehlman isn't qualified to discuss Latino issues because of his race, and that bit has more than a bit of a racist tinge such as one might have heard coming out of a Mississippi politician in the 50s.
Odd: Obama Latino outreach director promoted giveaways, tax cuts, not immigration "reform" - 01/29/09
However, the dog that didn't bark is that she didn't say a peep about comprehensive immigration reform. That "reform" is certainly a vital issue to racial-power-mad Hispanic leaders, but this might be a slight indication that it's not such a vital issue to grassroots Hispanics. Of course, there are hundreds of counter-examples, so don't consider this in any way conclusive. Excerpt follows:
* The drop in support among Latinos for Republicans between 2004 and 2008 was part of a broad-based electoral movement away from the GOP, and was hardly specific to that demographic group. McCain received only 57 percent of the white male vote, compared with 62 percent for Bush in 2004, and McCain’s 55 percent of regular churchgoers was significantly lower than Bush's 61 percent.
* Credible surveys indicate that the major policy concerns of Latinos were no different than the concerns of non-Latinos: The economy and jobs topped the list.
* There is little evidence that immigration policy was an influential factor in Latinos' choice between the two candidates once basic party predispositions are taken into account.
* McCain's consistent history of advocating a legalization program for illegal immigrants made no impression on Latino voters.
UPDATE: From the other side, the Immigration Policy Center has responded with some polling data linked from here:
The surveys they point to were performed by Frank Sharry's America's Voice, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, and others and may have been designed to show what those groups wanted them to show. The IPC fact sheet also doesn't address general election trends.
UPDATE 2: The CIS author responds to his critics here.
At the all-day, private GOP meeting at the Library of Congress, McCain told colleagues their poor image among Hispanics, which he attributed to bitter intra-party squabbles over immigration reform, dealt his campaign a devastating blow.Regarding the last, what I wrote about Mark McKinnon applies in this case also.
"He talked about his own race and the devastating loss of Hispanic voters and how that arose on the rhetoric on immigration," said a Senate Republican who attended the meeting.
A Republican senator who attended the meeting said that McCain emphasized the importance of healing the rift with Hispanics by talking about immigration reform in a "positive" way. McCain also discussed the importance of expanding the size of the party's tent by appealing to young voters.
"So we're not just the party of graying white men," said the lawmaker.
Regarding the rest, McCain was the candidate, not the rest of the GOP. He did his absolute best to pander, and no matter what he did, Barack Obama was able to undercut him. McCain spoke to the National Council of La Raza and pandered, but when Obama spoke to them he pandered even more. McCain vacillated between supporting comprehensive immigration reform and supporting "securing the borders first" and then pushing for "reform", with the latter as a slight sop to those who support our laws. Sources like Media Matters for America lied about that, pretending that he didn't support "reform".
No matter how bad McCain got, the Dems came back and were worse. One of the real lessons to be learned is that the GOP plan to import millions of future Democrats isn't such a bright idea after all. Another is not to give any position of power to a fool like McCain.
...And I'm a little concerned about the tone of the immigration debate, labeling our party as "anti"-people. It's one thing to say they want the border enforced, and I understand that. But if a group of people think that a political party is against them, it doesn't matter what else you stand for. And the tone, in my judgment, at times got to be "anti." At one point in our history we had too many Jewish people and too many Italians. I don't know if you remember that. And it was -- I'm just confident people were saying, I can't believe this is the America that I came to live in where I'm "anti" -- people are "anti"-me.Who exactly is "they" in the second sentence? Wouldn't the normal thing be to use "you" when referring to a non-specific group of people? I assume Bush considers himself and those like the members of the AEI to be a completely different class of persons from the Great Unwashed.
And so we're going to have to work, like, with the Latino vote to say, we care about you, we hear you, and we share your values -- faith and family, small businesses, military vets or, you know, disproportionate -- more Latinos serve as a percentage of their -- of population in the military than any other group, if I'm not mistaken.
The rest of statements have been said by many others, so to save time arguments showing how they're all wrong will be added at a later date; check the tags below.
Earlier today, the New York Times offered "The Immigrant Vote" , promising wrath and ruin upon those who dare stand in the way of corrupt businesses profiting from illegal activity:
Nevada is the first state on the election calendar with a sizable Hispanic vote, and among them will be a substantial number of immigrants. We don't know who they'll choose, but we do know they are anxious. They have endured the racially tinged rhetoric used to sink immigration reform; they have witnessed Republican candidates exploiting the xenophobic nastiness. Families have been torn apart as illegal immigrants have been deported, leaving their citizen children behind.
According to the
exit entrance polls from the Nevada caucuses (link), among Republicans identifying themselves as Latinos: Mitt Romney got 41%, followed by Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee with 9% each, Rudy Giuliani with 8%, Duncan Hunter with 6%, and Fred Thompson with 1%. The only openly pro-amnesty candidate, John McCain, got 25%. Rudy supports an amnesty, he just doesn't push it that much. But, to be fair let's add them together and come up with around a third selecting someone who's in favor of amnesty. And, other factors may have come in to play with that third.
Meanwhile, over on the Democratic side, among Latinos Hillary Clinton got 64% vs. Barack Obama's 24%, and he's slightly more pro-illegal immigration than She  is. Unlike Her, he supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens, and he also marched at 2006's pro-illegal immigration march in Chicago, the one that was organized by several people linked to the Mexican government. Of course, other factors which are not to be discussed may have played a role with some number of those who voted for Hillary. And, Bill Richardson is apparently still on the ballot and got 0%.
UPDATE: Numbers are crunched here.
 Generally speaking, there should be no such thing as the "immigrant vote", since anyone who can vote (at the federal level at least) must be a citizen and thus, even if they're a naturalized citizen they're no longer an "immigrant". A minor point? Well, yes. But, it goes to the already abysmal credibility of the New York Times.
 I'll be using the royal capitalization from here on out.
George F. Will was last heard offering a false choice argument on immigration, supporting the Bush line that we have to either give amnesty to illegal aliens or conduct mass deportations.
Now, he's back with "Calculating Immigration Politics":
Believe it or not, Morton wants Bush to co-opt Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and Laura Ingraham, so that those fine hosts can then turn around and explain the wisdom of Bush's plans to the great unwashed out there beyond the beltway. Unfortunately, Kondracke doesn't discuss what those hosts would do when their ratings started to plummet.
And, he can't even tell his amnesty schemes apart:
...Bush tilted right himself... declaring opposition to "amnesty" for illegals... ...but business and pro-immigrant groups are concerned that the bill will contain a provision sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) that would require workers to return to their home countries after their six-year work visas expire... That would disrupt employment patterns and family life and discourage illegals from reporting for work permits in the first place.Actually, the Cornyn/Kyl scheme requires the workers to go back to their countries and then register. It's Bush's "temporary" worker scheme that says they have to leave after six years. Therefore, Morton just called into question Bush's scheme.
Immigration restrictionists denounce the McCain-Kennedy provision as "amnesty," but it's really a recognition of reality: There are 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., and it would be far more efficient to concentrate law enforcement resources on finding and expelling criminals among them than trying to corral them all...Now, for the truth, see "GAO: ICE all but ignores workplace enforcement".
...It's up to Bush to avoid stalemate - and there are lots of good arguments he can use to pull his party together. On the merits, he can show that enforcement-only immigration policy simply doesn't work. According to the Migration Policy Institute, overall spending on immigration enforcement increased from $1 billion in 1985 to $4.9 billion in 2002. Appropriations for the border patrol went up tenfold, and the number of agents rose eightfold. Yet, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, the number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. has averaged from 480,000 to 660,000 and a total of 9 million have entered since 1990.
Kondracke goes on to quote the National Immigration Forum and suggest that Bush should work with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And, he plays the "Hispanic Vote" card.
But, wait, there's more work for me to do:
...Anti-immigrant campaigns don't win. In Southern California, Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the much-publicized Minutemen Project, a civilian border-control group, got only 25 percent of the vote and finished third...The Kilgore race appears to have hinged on something else. As for Gilchrist, Mort completely distorts the significance of that 25%. For instance, on election day, Gilchrist seems to have gotten more votes than Campbell.
And former Virginia Attorney Gen. Jerry Kilgore (R) lost to Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine (D) despite ads that attacked Kaine's support for a day-labor site in suburban Herndon and education for immigrant children. The ad concluded, "What part of illegal doesn't Kaine understand?"
Then, he says:
Currently, the 2006 favorite [for prez of Mexico] is former Mexico City Mayor Andres Lopez Obrador of the left-wing PRD party - someone who's likely to get financial assistance from Venezuela's radical President Hugo Chavez and, if elected, could pursue economic policies that cause a surge in illegal immigration.Even more than Bush and Fox have managed to do? While I'm sure he would drive MX even further down, he might also shake things up a bit. And, he certainly wouldn't be as chummy with our "American" president as Fox has been. Plus, we'd probably see Mexico's plans a bit more clearly with someone else at the helm. I'm not in favor of Obrador, but if he won it would have some advantages that another Pepsi executive type would not have.
Then, Mort trots out the poll discussed in "FAIR Responds to Sham Immigration Poll" and Immigration "news" from the Wall Street Journal. And, he ends with this:
Doing the right thing is win-win for Republicans, if only Bush can convince Sean Hannity.Hannity might be an idiot, but I'm sure he isn't stupid. I'm sure he doesn't want to be reduced to being the night jock on a Fargo Oldies station. Perhaps Bush should learn from him, instead of the other way around? After all, Hannity actually knows what most of the public wants, unlike the Bush administration and Beltway hacks.
Tancredo knows his candidacy would be quixotic, and he worries that if he wins few votes his issue will be discounted. But he also knows that presidential primaries are, among other things, market research mechanisms whereby unserved constituencies are discovered and dormant issues brought to life.Now, see The "Hispanic Vote" myth for all the many reasons that concept is wrong.
Which is what worries Republican officials. They desperately want to avoid giving offense to the Hispanic vote, the rapidly growing -- and already the largest -- cohort in play in American politics.
The basic problem is that the nation's economy is ravenous for more immigrant labor than the system of legal immigration can currently provide.Last I checked, there are millions of Americans out of work, including hundreds of thousands from Katrina. Just over half of black males in NYC between 16 and 64 are employed. And, there's the not inconsequential matter of throwing cheap labor at a problem when mechanization and automation are the better solution for this country.
Furthermore, about 11 million illegal immigrants are in America. It would take a lot of buses -- 200,000 of them, bumper-to-bumper in a convoy 1,700 miles long -- to carry them back to America's border. America will not do that -- will not round up and deport the equivalent of the population of Ohio.No, it isn't that simple as long as corrupt politicians are in charge and are unable or unwilling to crack down on corrupt businesses.
Tancredo agrees, and insists that no such draconian measure is necessary. His silver bullet is to "just enforce the law" -- the law against hiring illegal immigrants. Give employers computerized means of checking the status of job applicants, and, he says, the ones here illegally will go home. If only it were that simple.