Monday, January 16, 2012

Directions for Republicans on how to take cyanide

The strategy is as simple as it is obvious as it is disingenuous. Continue to urge Republicans to abandon immigration restrictionism and instead Hispander at full bore. It's inevitable that Hispanics are going to continue growing not only in absolute numbers but also as a share of the US population, so best not to do anything to offend them:
Mitt Romney "is done," said DeeDee Blase, founder of Somos Republicans in Arizona. "He'll be lucky to get 8 percent of the Hispanic vote" after saying he would veto legislation that would create a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants and accepting the endorsement of anti-immigration activist Kris Kobach, architect of two of the strongest immigration crackdown laws in the country.

The GOP front-runner, Romney has referred to the legislation — called the DREAM Act — as a handout.
The fact that Hispanics are more concerned about a host of other issues than they are about immigration aside, this putative inevitability is of course evitable with the enforcement of immigration laws and the halting of illegal immigration from across the US-Mexico southern border:
The government projects Hispanics will account for roughly 30 percent of the population by 2050, doubling in size and boosting their political power. Overall, Hispanics traditionally tilt Democrat, meaning the Republican Party is looking at a threat to their future power if they don't work to make inroads with this politically pivotal group now.
Eating low-fat pudding is not the way to lose weight. If the margin on each additional sale is negative, a business can't make up the loss by increasing sales volume. It doesn't strike me as being overly cynical to presume that the leftists who prescribe this strategy for Republicans are fully aware that it will work to relegate the GOP to permanent minority status.

In a stunning display of amnesia, the AP article provides the following:
Some worry that this year's eventual GOP nominee won't fare much better than McCain four years ago — and may fare worse — if candidates don't soften the way they talk about immigration.
McCain, of course, was co-sponsor of the 2007 Senate amnesty bill, relentlessly courted Hispanics and chastised restrictionists in his own party, and barred those who took a tough line on illegal immigration from the 2008 Republican nominating convention. He was the epitome of a Republican Hispanderer, and yet he still got his clock cleaned among Hispanics, 31%-67%. If most Hispanics are "natural Republicans" save for the party's stance on immigration, McCain would've been the perfect pol for them to rally around to mold the GOP in exactly the image they wanted. They did nothing of the sort though, as the list of reasons that Hispanics tend to vote Democratic is a long one, of which immigration is just one (and a relatively unimportant one at that) of many.

As for Romney, I'm feeling vindicated for having promoted him as far back as the 2008 presidential primary season as a relatively hard-line restrictionist on the issue of illegal immigration. Kobach's endorsement is enough to get this guy to surprise himself by doing something other than throwing his vote away on a third party this November and instead supporting Mitt.


Anonymous said...

As for Romney, I'm feeling vindicated for having promoted him as far back as the 2008 presidential primary season as a relatively hard-line restrictionist on the issue of illegal immigration. Kobach's endorsement is enough to get this guy to surprise himself by doing something other than throwing his vote away on a third party this November and instead supporting Mitt.

Rick Santorum has suddenly started talking tough on immigration. Consequently NumbersUSA has boosted his rating to an A-.


Anonymous said...

Or perhaps the republicans should go after the rest of the voters whites, Asians and blacks, which still make up the majority.

I also don't believe that illegal aliens should be able to vote and I'm sure congress will pass the bill that prohibits their kids from gaining US citizenship.

Audacious Epigone said...


Wow, that was unexpected. I had no idea. Very encouraging. The diversity visa lottery seems like such an obviously bad idea, yet it has received almost no attention during the Republican primaries up to this point. Great to see Santorum voluntarily bring it up.


Are you referring to the Steve King bill to make birthright citizenship a lot more restrictive? I remember reading about it last year, but haven't heard much in the interim. Looks like it hasn't gone anywhere. What makes you sure congress will pass it?

Noah172 said...

Something is wrong with NumbersUSA this year. Santorum used be graded very badly as a presidential candidate, a D or an F (although his Congressional grade was pretty good, though not perfect). Then they boost him to an A? while keeping Ron Paul, the only candidate who has made an issue of birthright citizenship, an F? I respect NumbersUSA a lot on their research and advocacy, but on political analysis, something is fishy. Does someone in their leadership dislike Paul because of non-immigration issues?

Kovach, remember, is an up-and-comer in Republican politics, and may be jumping on the Romney bandwagon. Note that the leader of the Minutemen endorsed that skunk Huckabee four years ago, which I couldn't figure out.

I don't trust Romney on anything.

Dan said...


I used to be an open borders libertarian, but through the study of HBD I've come to the conclusion that not all immigrants are created equal.

I see two reasons to oppose immigration. 1) Political: Hispanics will solidify a Democratic majority and the US will drift towards a burdensome European welfare state. 2) Economic/Social: Hispanic immigrants impose social costs on our public goods (understood broadly as not just schools and hospitals but also social trust and values), and will make the aforementioned welfare state even more burdensome.

None of this is groundbreaking. However, I'm trying to elucidate my thoughts on (2). Do you have suggestions for a source that does the best job presenting (2) in a comprehensive long-form essay? Perhaps something by yourself, Steve Sailer, or someone along those lines.

I spend most of my time with NE Urban SWPLs, and I'm ready to start engaging with some of them, but I'd like to solidify my position with adequate factual knowledge first.

Audacious Epigone said...


Yeah, I share your sentiments re: NumbersUSA. In the past, the report card grades were constituted entirely of legislative action (or at least so I thought). Parsing campaign speeches or public pronouncements in response to questions and then assigning a grade based on as much strikes me as inherently arbitrary and about as ephemeral as the words of a pol--if he kowtows to a immigrant activist group next week, will Numbers then drop his grade back down to a D?

Re: Kobach, yes, he's only 45, so he has a long political future ahead of him. While I don't particularly trust Romney, I do trust Kobach, who I've met and talked to on multiple occasions. The guy is driven--not just for political expediency, but truly driven by an intrinsic desire--to stop the massive influx of Latin American immigrants into the US. If he expresses the most confidence in Romney re: immigration, that means a great deal to me.


John Derbyshire has referred to the current position you've arrived at as "libertarianism within our borders". I first heard him describe it that way in a Radio Derb broadcast, though I can't remember which one. It comes pretty close describing my sentiments as well. Libertarians who support open borders are waving in millions of people who are as politically antithetical to libertarian ideals as possible.

Pat Buchanan's State of Emergency is a good full-length treatment of current immigration patterns and what it means for the US.

Anonymous said...

Where is John Doerr's credibility when he told a generation of MBA students he did the right thing by firing Steve Jobs? John Doerr should ask Kit Wong why Chinese engineers only sought venture capital when they were out of work and Wong told them to start restaurants to learn entrepreneurship as they rejected Wong when they had safe jobs. Foreign students can be bright, but faculty exaggerate their brilliance because foreign students are servile in doing work and favors for faculty and not demanding that professors actually earn their tuition keep. Moreover, faculty like that foreign students are either afraid, complicit or morally ambivalent about the immoral grant guzzling behavior of professors. In many cases they are more likely to share the professors' anti-Americanism than American students. Meanwhile perfectly good American engineers have to get jobs at Home Depot. And Google cancels my account for saying these things but dares to complain about censorship. Why should the liberal media get SOPA protection?