Wednesday, November 14, 2012

The Silent Xenophobes

Alerted by Steve Sailer of the ability to cross tab exit polling data for free via Reuters, I thought it'd be a fun challenge to try and paint an electoral map red--entirely--to contrast with the easy-to-create blue one. Perhaps married white men earning at least six figures annually (though in honor of Jokah Macpherson, I suspect that demographic trends slightly progressive in Vermont)? Unfortunately, the sample sizes aren't large enough to look at anything interesting in states with electoral college votes of the single digit variety.

The data doodling is available for more than just presidential election exit polling, however--users are free to play with results from other Reuters' polls as well. Speaking of the election, the stage looks to be set for a resurrection of the 2007 'bipartisan' amnesty bill that was torn apart, limb from limb, by a hostile public that won't quite roll over and die:
Emboldened by the large turnout of Hispanic voters in last week's general election, U.S. President Barack Obama said Wednesday he plans to move quickly to address what he has called the biggest failure of his first term - comprehensive immigration reform.
Steve says "bring it on". Hell yes. This will be Obama's social security privatization push, obsessed over by a handful of wonks but facing populist opposition so deep and widespread that it will taint his entire second term.

Don't take it from me, though, consider public sentiment. In July of this year Reuters polled respondents on their positions (among four, see below) concerning three immigration-related issues germane to the discussion about Arizona's SB 1070. The Establishment regularly labels those who approve of any of said positions as "extremist", "anti-immigrant", "xenophobic", etc, and, excepting Pat Buchanan and maybe Mark Steyn, it's difficult to find a mainstream pundit who vigorously assents to any of them. Randomly open up the phone book, though, and chances are the person picking up the phone will.

I've come up with what will be deemed a restrictionist score by race, computed using a simple formula:

(% strongly favoring * 2) + (% somewhat favoring) - (% somewhat opposing) - (% strongly opposing * 2) = Restrictionist Score

Thus the scale runs from +200 (everyone strongly favoring the enforcement tactic at hand) on the especially restrictionist side to -200 (everyone strongly opposing enforcement) on the utterly open borders end of the spectrum.

"Require law enforcement to check the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens."

RaceR Score
Whites+107
Blacks+45
Hispanics-9

Notice this goes beyond merely authorizing law enforcement to inquire about a person's residency status--it requires that they investigate it. A majority of whites (54.2%) strongly favor this approach while just 6.9% strongly oppose it. More than three-quarters of whites hold anti-immigrant, xenophobic views, uncouthly desiring the people's laws be enforced by those sworn to enforce them! Blacks, skeptical as they are of cops digging into people's personal business, are mostly restrictionist, too. Hispanics, at -9, are almost evenly split--a reoccurring trend, as we shall see--the perfect balance for a rational, informed discussion of the issue to be had among the self-proclaimed leaders of the "Hispanic community", right?

"Allow law enforcement officers to arrest anyone unable to document immigration status."

RaceR Score
Whites+74
Blacks+14
Hispanics-6

Majorities of both whites and blacks feel those without 'papers' should be arrested. Hispanics, again, are divided straight down the middle. Tough to see where the political sell for amnesty is to be made, but we have one more shot remaining.

"Make it a crime for illegal immigrants to try to work in the United States."

RaceR Score
Whites+101
Blacks+45
Hispanics-3

Look, they're just trying to make a better life for themselves and all that--go after the employers who exploit these undocumented workers if you must, but don't punish people for doing the jobs Americans won't do, racists! Nope, the public doesn't buy the tripe about people who've knowingly broken the laws of the land by consciously ignoring the national sovereignty of the US somehow being innocent victims. Again, a majority (52.9%) of whites strongly favors a law such as this, while only 6.5% of whites strongly oppose it. By a 2-to-1 margin, blacks are on board with. Hispanics, once more, are split on the idea.

Be ready to contact your congress critters when the legislative process of electing a new people gets going again in earnest. If you're looking for an easy, comprehensive (heh) way to go about doing so, check out NumbersUSA and sign up for action alert notifications. The war may be lost, but we can still make a heroic stand and enjoy the sweet taste of victory in a few battles. Bring it on.

4 comments:

sykes.1 said...

It is not surprising that Blacks are restrictionist. What is surprising is that they are more restrictionist than Whites. Blacks are the main victims of open borders as they are displaced from jobs and neighborhoods. In parts of LA, this includes violent ethnic cleansing of blacks by Mexican gangs.

There is a opportunity for a Republican Party to split the Black-Hispanic political alliance on the immigration issue and to form a Black-White antiHispanic majority. However, to do that they would have to become a Nativist Socialist Party.

sykes.1 said...

That should be are not more restrictionist.

Jokah Macpherson said...

I hope you are right that this is Obama's social security privatization. I am not as confident, though. His executive order version of the dream act this summer didn't seem to ruffle many feathers in spite of the public opinion you document here.

By the way, I was surprised to find the Wall Street Journal admit in one of their editorial opinions encouraging Republicans to court Hispanics that they admitted Hispanics were mostly indifferent on the immigration issue. Of course, they then pulled a Robert Putnam and concluded that "immigration reform" still matters as a symbolic issue.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

It's the word "comprehensive" that should make you panic when it comes out of Washington. It means ever more tinkering, so that more things come under the orders of our betters, with more opportunities to pay off sectors here and there to swallow the poison pill.

Single, small solutions work better. But they don't need congressmen to screw with them to work, so they don't get to show us their value-added. For example, Build The Wall. It doesn't solve everything. It solves...what, 10%, 20%, 30% of the overall problem? Fine. Then do that, then go on to step two. Punishing employers who use illegals, perhaps, or seeing if we can change the anchor-baby, bring-your-relatives immigration rules. Along the way, note unintended consequences. Ameliorate those. Step 3 - benefits eligibility, voter ID, whatever.

One step at a time. Keep it simple.

Along the way, if the open borders people want to propose a stand-alone amnesty scheme, fine. Without other stuff to disguise it, it would have to be watered down to pass. Knock yourselves out, there.