0 comment Thursday, May 29, 2014 | admin
I'm back.
I hoped to delay returning to blogging about the news cycle and the political stories for a while, but it's just too hard to ignore the many stories that are floating around, begging to be commented on. So many outrages, so little time.
The amnesty machine is shifting into high gear again, despite the will of the American people:
And has anybody seen the 'Tom Brokaw Reports' on NBC, on the immigration crisis?
I haven't watched it, for fear my head might explode, but I'd like to hear what others have to say about it, if any of my readers saw it.
And here, John Hawkins at Human Events, writes about immigration myths:
The Great Illegal Immigration Myth of '06
Since the election, you may have heard pro-amnesty Republicans or liberals saying something like this, "The 2006 election proves that being tough on illegal immigration doesn't work as a political issue. Look at J.D. Hayworth, John Hostettler, Randy Graf and Henry Bonilla. After that debacle, the GOP is surely going to cave on illegal immigration now."
Well, as someone who followed the election very closely and did a better job of calling winners and losers than almost all of the political pundits out there (My final predictions: five Senate seats lost and 22-29 seats in the House lost. Final numbers: six Senate seats lost and 30 House seats), I can tell you that being tough on illegal immigration didn't hurt the GOP in 2006
[...]But, what about the Hispanic vote? Didn't the GOP lose some Hispanic voters because of their illegal immigration stance? Yes, but the numbers related to illegal immigration were undoubtedly fairly small. Now, that's not what you'll hear from amnesty proponents. They'll point out that the percentage of Hispanics voting for the GOP dropped from 44% in 2004 to 30% in 2006. However, what they don't mention is that 44% was an all-time high for the Hispanic vote and that the support for the GOP dropped in almost every demographic group in 2006.'' [Emphasis mine]
Hawkins makes some good points; it is true that the pundits across the spectrum tended to spin the election results so as to make the election results seem like a repudiation of the anti-illegal immigration movement.
But the open-borders faction within the GOP (which seems to be the group in the driver's seat now) was just as guilty of this bit of spin as the Democrats and Dem-symps in the MSM.
And speaking of myths, I have to rebuke Mr. Hawkins on one point here: in the above-quoted paragraph, he repeats that Urban Myth beloved of the Open Borders crowd, claiming that the GOP had 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.
Will this myth never die? It has been debunked but it keeps being resurrected, like Dracula, no matter how many stakes have been driven into it.
But here goes, one more time: Steve Sailer rebuts that assertion here.
Bush Didn't Win 44% of Hispanic Vote - The Smoking Exit Poll
And here, Sailer refutes the persistent myth, created by the open-borders RNC crowd, that Hispanics are 'natural Republicans'.
And here, from Sailer's blog, in 2005:
Hispanic vote smaller than assumed
And as Michelle Malkin blogged on this right after the 2004 election,
Whither the Hispanic Vote?
And Michelle gets to the nub of the whole issue:
Why does all of this matter? Because both parties have been aggressively wooing the Hispanic vote. A surge in Hispanic support for Bush is sure to be interpreted as vindication of Bush's support for quasi-amnesty for illegal aliens.
However, the premise that undergirds that conclusion -- i.e., that Hispanics overwhelmingly oppose tough immigration enforcement--appears to be unwarranted. As long as we're looking at exit polls (flawed though they may be), check out the results for Initiative 200 in Arizona. According to CNN's web site, the anti-illegal immigration measure was supported by 47 percent(!) of Latino voters. And let's not forget that pandering to the pro-illegal immigration lobby alienates some white swing voters.'' [Emphasis mine]
Exactly.
I keep belaboring this issue whenever it comes up, because this ridiculous myth of the 'Republican Hispanics' keeps being dragged out to justify the GOP's pandering, and the amnesty-that-won't-die.
So now, George Bush and the open-borders shills in the Senate are resurrecting that amnesty-by-any-other-name, so here we go again.
As many times as I've posted some of the above links, citing Steve Sailer's refutation of the '44% of the Hispanic vote' myth, it never seems to make a dent; the story goes on and on and on, like the Energizer bunny. (Is the Energizer Bunny still at it? He may not be, for all I know.) In any case, it serves the purposes of the political classes to at least feign a belief in the 'conservative Hispanic' myth. There is every evidence that it is not true, and having grown up around Hispanic people, I can honestly say that whatever they were said to be, no one ever claimed they were political conservatives. Ever. It's only during the current administration that I ever heard this silly myth, but I believe Ronald Reagan may have been the first to promulgate it during the run-up to his own Amnesty push. In any case, he did court the Hispanic vote himself
Maybe there were some actual 'conservative' Hispanic voters in Reagan's era, or at least more assimilated, middle-of-the-road voters. But did they necessarily identify with the traditional culture and values and institutions and history of this country? From my own experience, I would say not necessarily. And today's Hispanic populations in America are not in any way traditionally conservative, for the most part. Even the most 'conservative' of the Hispanics, the Cuban-Americans, often put ethnicity above all, and don't identify with Anglo America. Mel Martinez, Bush's choice for RNC chairman, is the example that comes to mind. And lest anyone say he is an exception, I invite them to look up Hispanic congressmen's votes on immigration issues.
On the linked page, simply scroll down to see the rankings by grade letter. And notice, if you will, how many of the 'F' grades listed have Hispanic names, as well as the 'F-minus' grades. And go back to the 'A' grades: how many Hispanic names do you see? I see none. Zero, zip.
As long as this idea of the Hispanic vote as the Holy Grail for both parties is still being promoted, what hope is there that we can stop the amnesty/open borders juggernaut?
But try we must; our choice is between amnesty and America, as we have known it.
That choice is a no-brainer for patriots.
I hoped to delay returning to blogging about the news cycle and the political stories for a while, but it's just too hard to ignore the many stories that are floating around, begging to be commented on. So many outrages, so little time.
The amnesty machine is shifting into high gear again, despite the will of the American people:
And has anybody seen the 'Tom Brokaw Reports' on NBC, on the immigration crisis?
I haven't watched it, for fear my head might explode, but I'd like to hear what others have to say about it, if any of my readers saw it.
And here, John Hawkins at Human Events, writes about immigration myths:
The Great Illegal Immigration Myth of '06
Since the election, you may have heard pro-amnesty Republicans or liberals saying something like this, "The 2006 election proves that being tough on illegal immigration doesn't work as a political issue. Look at J.D. Hayworth, John Hostettler, Randy Graf and Henry Bonilla. After that debacle, the GOP is surely going to cave on illegal immigration now."
Well, as someone who followed the election very closely and did a better job of calling winners and losers than almost all of the political pundits out there (My final predictions: five Senate seats lost and 22-29 seats in the House lost. Final numbers: six Senate seats lost and 30 House seats), I can tell you that being tough on illegal immigration didn't hurt the GOP in 2006
[...]But, what about the Hispanic vote? Didn't the GOP lose some Hispanic voters because of their illegal immigration stance? Yes, but the numbers related to illegal immigration were undoubtedly fairly small. Now, that's not what you'll hear from amnesty proponents. They'll point out that the percentage of Hispanics voting for the GOP dropped from 44% in 2004 to 30% in 2006. However, what they don't mention is that 44% was an all-time high for the Hispanic vote and that the support for the GOP dropped in almost every demographic group in 2006.'' [Emphasis mine]
Hawkins makes some good points; it is true that the pundits across the spectrum tended to spin the election results so as to make the election results seem like a repudiation of the anti-illegal immigration movement.
But the open-borders faction within the GOP (which seems to be the group in the driver's seat now) was just as guilty of this bit of spin as the Democrats and Dem-symps in the MSM.
And speaking of myths, I have to rebuke Mr. Hawkins on one point here: in the above-quoted paragraph, he repeats that Urban Myth beloved of the Open Borders crowd, claiming that the GOP had 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.
Will this myth never die? It has been debunked but it keeps being resurrected, like Dracula, no matter how many stakes have been driven into it.
But here goes, one more time: Steve Sailer rebuts that assertion here.
Bush Didn't Win 44% of Hispanic Vote - The Smoking Exit Poll
And here, Sailer refutes the persistent myth, created by the open-borders RNC crowd, that Hispanics are 'natural Republicans'.
And here, from Sailer's blog, in 2005:
Hispanic vote smaller than assumed
And as Michelle Malkin blogged on this right after the 2004 election,
Whither the Hispanic Vote?
And Michelle gets to the nub of the whole issue:
Why does all of this matter? Because both parties have been aggressively wooing the Hispanic vote. A surge in Hispanic support for Bush is sure to be interpreted as vindication of Bush's support for quasi-amnesty for illegal aliens.
However, the premise that undergirds that conclusion -- i.e., that Hispanics overwhelmingly oppose tough immigration enforcement--appears to be unwarranted. As long as we're looking at exit polls (flawed though they may be), check out the results for Initiative 200 in Arizona. According to CNN's web site, the anti-illegal immigration measure was supported by 47 percent(!) of Latino voters. And let's not forget that pandering to the pro-illegal immigration lobby alienates some white swing voters.'' [Emphasis mine]
Exactly.
I keep belaboring this issue whenever it comes up, because this ridiculous myth of the 'Republican Hispanics' keeps being dragged out to justify the GOP's pandering, and the amnesty-that-won't-die.
So now, George Bush and the open-borders shills in the Senate are resurrecting that amnesty-by-any-other-name, so here we go again.
As many times as I've posted some of the above links, citing Steve Sailer's refutation of the '44% of the Hispanic vote' myth, it never seems to make a dent; the story goes on and on and on, like the Energizer bunny. (Is the Energizer Bunny still at it? He may not be, for all I know.) In any case, it serves the purposes of the political classes to at least feign a belief in the 'conservative Hispanic' myth. There is every evidence that it is not true, and having grown up around Hispanic people, I can honestly say that whatever they were said to be, no one ever claimed they were political conservatives. Ever. It's only during the current administration that I ever heard this silly myth, but I believe Ronald Reagan may have been the first to promulgate it during the run-up to his own Amnesty push. In any case, he did court the Hispanic vote himself
Maybe there were some actual 'conservative' Hispanic voters in Reagan's era, or at least more assimilated, middle-of-the-road voters. But did they necessarily identify with the traditional culture and values and institutions and history of this country? From my own experience, I would say not necessarily. And today's Hispanic populations in America are not in any way traditionally conservative, for the most part. Even the most 'conservative' of the Hispanics, the Cuban-Americans, often put ethnicity above all, and don't identify with Anglo America. Mel Martinez, Bush's choice for RNC chairman, is the example that comes to mind. And lest anyone say he is an exception, I invite them to look up Hispanic congressmen's votes on immigration issues.
On the linked page, simply scroll down to see the rankings by grade letter. And notice, if you will, how many of the 'F' grades listed have Hispanic names, as well as the 'F-minus' grades. And go back to the 'A' grades: how many Hispanic names do you see? I see none. Zero, zip.
As long as this idea of the Hispanic vote as the Holy Grail for both parties is still being promoted, what hope is there that we can stop the amnesty/open borders juggernaut?
But try we must; our choice is between amnesty and America, as we have known it.
That choice is a no-brainer for patriots.
Labels: Again, Immigration Myths