Sunday, September 16, 2007

WSJ, along with DHS, gets in a few quick punches ahead of next week's Senate amnesty

The WSJ's op/ed, in tandem with its usually objective 'Hot Topic' section, have launched a typically dishonest one-two punch in front of the open border Senators' furtive attempt to attach several amnesty provisions to defense legislation that will be discussed next week (and the DHS has joined the fray as well). There's nothing new here, while the lilliputian steps Gigot and the boys have taken (admitting in a round-about-way that the 44% figure for Bush's share of the Hispanic vote in '04 was wrong, advising against ethnic pandering, etc) continue. A quick repudiation of the most conspicuous falsehoods:
In the mid-1990s after California Governor Pete Wilson embraced Proposition 187, which denied education and health-care benefits to the children of illegal aliens, Latino support for Republicans fell to 25% from 53%, and GOP support among Asians and women declined as well.

Pete Wilson was a moderate on his way out in 1994. He took the pulse of the California public and backed the overwhelmingly popular Proposition 187, which was killed when it was ruled unconstitutional, but kept him in for five additional years. The Hispanic flood continued, and the once Republican stronghold became forever Democratic, as several other 'swing states' undergoing a similar demographic transition are inevitably going to become.

Moving on:
Hispanics are now about 8% of the electorate...
According to the Pew Hispanic center, that's a decade or so away if current trends continue. In 2002, Hispanics votes comprised 5.3% of the total in 2002, 6.0% in 2004, and 5.8% in 2006:
... but they're projected to become 20% by 2020 and one-quarter of the total U.S. population by 2050.
Uh, that's what the Republican party should be trying to avert. Nowhere is it etched in stone that such projections must be borne out. The vast majority of Americans support the idea of confounding those estimates by completely ending illegal immigration and reducing legal immigration.

The swing states are lillywhite, although the WSJ won't tell you so:
Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona all boast heavy Latino populations and are states that a GOP Presidential candidate probably has to carry unless he can pick up states on the West coast or in the Northeast that Republicans haven't won since the 1980s.
Actually, more than half of the country's Hispanics live in California or Texas, two of the most electorally reliable states. Of the ten most competitive states in the 2004 election, only two are proportionally more Hispanic than the nation at large, New Mexico (third closest) and Nevada (seventh closest). The other eight (in order of competitiveness)--Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Oregon, have (far) smaller Hispanic proportions of their total populations than the country does as a whole. Clearly, the "key swing states" are much whiter than the rest of the electorally predictable states are. So in reality the size of the national Hispanic vote overstates, not understates, the actual importance of the Hispanic electorate in Presidential elections.

Since 1996 to the last Presidential election, the GOP has netted 1.3 million extra Hispanic votes, even granting the risible 44% figure in 2004. Over the same time period, it has picked up 11 million white voters. Maybe trying to tailor a message to the swaths of traditional, middle class families in the Northeast isn't so bad an idea.

The WSJ, which has offered prudent political advice in the past, such as opposing the minimum wage increase, supporting a disastrous and hopeless war in Iraq, and supporting seminal steps for an EU-esque North American bloc, refers to the putative wisdom of:

Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, and Matthew Dowd [who] took note of what was appening long before their Democratic counterparts...
All three of these characters have jumped ship (Dowd appears to favor Obama for '08), as the Republican party they steered into an iceberg continues to sink.

The boys slander Tancredo (who they refuse to let write in his own defense on their op/ed pages, even though they have repeatedly attacked him), calling him the Pied Piper. Fortunately, the op/ed page makes a poor piper itself, attracting only the establishment elites with their playing.


John said...

Thanks for this information; I've sent e-mails and faxes and phone calls are for Monday morning andas many other days as long as this anti-american nightmare act is pending.

sean said...

You accuse the Wall Street Journal of wanting conservatives to sacrifice certain principles ("sovereignty") and yet you expect them to do the same when it comes to the minimum wage? Hypocrisy does not do you well when you are attempting to invalidate someone else.

Articifically raising wages makes illegal immigration _more_ attractive, not less. Instead of 5.15 versus something less it is 7.25 versus something less.

If the wage number was a way to raise living standards, why only two dollars? Why not ten or one hundred?

John said...

Restricting assisted immigration of undesirables is hugely less artificial than increasing the aggression on our fellow citizens the net taxpayers, through a pretense of open borders.

Audacious Epigone said...


No, I agree with the WSJ on the minimum wage issue. A nominal increase in the minimum wage creates a short-term labor market disruption that discourages firms from hiring initially, while unions rely on the minimum wage as a chip in their collective bargaining. Those who make slightly over the minimum wage are hurt the most, but consumers in general have to suffer the corresponding and irritating increase in 'core' prices that follows. The real effect is minimal but not desirable.

My point is that the WSJ op/ed crew, as ideological True Believers, make terrible political advisers. In the run-up to the '06 mid-terms, opinion polls consistently showed support for a wage hike in the 70%-80% range. So many things they've supported in the last six years have been politically disastrous for the Republican party. Yet they advise more of the same. The Pied Piper reference is self-projection on the board's part. Even the guys they hold up as wisemen have all fleed the GOP. It'd be humorous if it weren't serious.