How Much Is the Hispanic Vote Worth to the GOP?
Michael Gerson Puts Politics Over Principle
By Bluey Posted in Immigration — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson pleads with Republicans to make peace with illegal immigrants in today's Washington Post. Gerson once again argues that politics (winning more Hispanic votes) is more important than principle (following the law). It's the same type of nonsense we heard from Gerson this summer when President Bush and Sens. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and John McCain (R.-Ariz.) tried to sell an amnesty bill to the American public.
Gerson begins his piece by chastising presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani for taking a tough stance against illegal immigrants. Gerson implies that the tough talk is a turnoff to the growing Hispanic population.
It is a strange spectacle. Conservatives are intent on building a more appealing, post-Bush Republican Party. But their most obvious change so far is to reverse remarkable Republican gains among one of the fastest-growing groups of American voters. The renovators seem more like the wrecking crew.
Gerson's idea of a "more appealing" party is one that features a candidate (or in this case president) who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants. Although Gerson once again denies that Bush's comprehensive plan amounted to amnesty, it was "undeniably amnesty" in the words of constitutional scholar Matt Spalding, my colleague at the Heritage Foundation.
With his eye on the 2008 general election, Gerson cites the political benefits of rewarding lawbreakers with amnesty -- or at the very least turning a blind eye to the security aspects of the immigration debate.
More on the jump ...
I have never seen an issue where the short-term interests of Republican presidential candidates in the primaries were more starkly at odds with the long-term interests of the party itself. At least five swing states that Bush carried in 2004 are rich in Hispanic voters -- Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Florida. Bush won Nevada by just over 20,000 votes. A substantial shift of Hispanic voters toward the Democrats in these states could make the national political map unwinnable for Republicans.
But what's perhaps most absurd is Gerson's comparison of the illegal-immigration debate to the civil-rights struggle of the 1960s. He notes that Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was so symbolic that blacks stopped supporting Republicans.
Now Republicans seem to be repeating history with Hispanic Americans. Some in the party seem pleased. They should be terrified.
Outlawing segregation in 1964 is far different from rewarding lawbreakers in 2007. But in Michael Gerson's mind, winning the Hispanic vote is much more important. He apparently sees no problem using bad public policy to advance the establishment GOP's political agenda.
« Federal Jobs Illegal Immigrants Can’t Do — Comments (12) | If Alex Tabarrok Is An "Idiot," Then I Don't Want To Be A Genius — Comments (22) »
How Much Is the Hispanic Vote Worth to the GOP? 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
is that the anti-illegal rhetoric is coming from white people (for the most part) and seems racist to Hispanics and Latino peoples. Every time someone like Tancredo calls for 1000 miles of walls to be built between the U.S. and Mexico it sounds anti-Mexican.
If the message can be expanded to include all those who come here with visas and stay beyond their allowed amount of time, people from Europe, Russia, the Middle East (including Israel), Mexico, Indonesia, China, and South America then it may be seen as anti-illegal and not anti-Mexican.
Ideally, Hispanic Americans should be the primary faces for the anti-illegal message. I just don't think they are out there.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
We have to play on the field that exists - including a hostile MSM (but also including stridently anti-immigrant talk radio). The reality is that while the base, the middle and even much of the other party's base is against illegal immigration, we have to send a clear and sustained message that we are not anti-immigrant as a whole. Guys like Tancredo don't help that (and neither does having people from the Bush Administration demonizing the hardliners).
Hey, nobody said it was easy.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
It can't be fixed. When people are determined to lie about us, we can't very well stop them.
I guess the best alternative is to shun them. If Republicans would stop talking to lying press outlets, that might help. Turn them into lefty-only echo chambers, and people might get the idea.
Are Republican elected officials going to have the courage to boycott though? Nope.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
We won't get the support of the illegal immigrants if we send them home. They will be driven to support Democrats, if we send them home.
No, they won't be supporting anyone if we send them home.
Immigration is the one area where there is largely consensus among Democrats and Republicans. The numbers opposing easy legalization run about 2/3 of the population. Even typically Democratic black voters are opposed to amnesty.
Why Republicans are not willing to capitalize on this is beyond me. Any of the Republicans candidates who can speak passionately but sanely about the issue (and other issues. Don't think Tancredo is the guy), has the best chance of winning the White House.
This ignores the large numbers of Latino voters here legally who may have an adverse reaction if they think we are hostile to them generally. That's why this issue can't just be a straight-ahead crusade; it has to be handled carefully.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
...why being against illegal immigration hurts the GOP amongst Hispanics. Illegal immigrants can't vote, so that doesn't matter. I don't understand why legal hispanic immigrants would be upset with a strong border policy. After all, they followed the rules and did everything right and came here through the legal channels.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
According to (and perhaps DUE to) the media, being against illegal immigration means you are racist, Q.E.D. So you hurt your position within the hispanic community.
absentee
My polling place only asked for a home utility bill.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
You don't even need the bill to register in this state. You can just have someone vouch for you. That's to register. All you need to actually cast a vote is to be able to say your name.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
According to the attached poll (and it is old), 51% of Mexicans believe it is a "very bad idea" to have an amnesty. This reminds me of another story I read a while back which was that the wages of Mexican workers here legally are being depressed by illegal workers. If amnesty was granted to those here, a new flock of illegal aliens would arrive. So, wage suppression would continue.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,33752,00.html
Erik
While we're at it, why don't we call for increasing taxes on The Rich™ as a way to try to secure the votes of the "financially challenged". Then we can offer to give everyone free healthcare (paid for by The Rich™ of course), too.
And just to continue the trend, we'll legalize homosexual marriage by federal fiat - no need to let those pesky states decide this on their own - in order to try and secure the all important homosexual-and-darn-it-I'm-proud! vote. It would be even better to think of a way to get The Rich™ to pony-up more taxes in the process.
Hey, then we can correct a 2-centuries-old gramatical mistake and rename ourselves The Democrat Party!
Or, we could stop gazing at our navels and start to insist that illegal means, well, illegal.
Savvy?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
We should just rename the party to the Grand Old Panderers
Argggh
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Has anybody heard of this Dream Act thing that Dick Durbin is trying to sneak in on the defense bill that the senate is voting on this week? From what I am hearing this thing will grant Amnesty to MILLIONS of illegal aliens. Get on the phone and start calling your Senators and ask them to vote against The Dream Act that is being attached by Dick Durbin on the current defense bill (H.R. 1585). Please call and help kill Dick Durbin's amnesty plan.
from michellemalkin.com we have a listing of Senators America
can count On
to defend our country. Sadly, it is no where near enough.
On the subject of Hispanics supporting illegal immigration, IMO, there are several different groups of Hispanics. Two that can be identified are; the ones who came here legally without the aid of any amnesty program, IMO none or few of these will support amnesty. The other group gained their American rights thru the previous amnesties that we have had. This has established, in their mind that American will not defend it's self. For the most part, I believe this group will support amnesty, for all practical purposes, this group still thinks of themselves as citizens of their native country. They (in the case of Mexicans and some other countries have dual citizenship. They, if fact, are aiding their native country
by supporting amnesty here and voting for those in their native country who support forcing the Americans to accept more of their fellow citizens to create more amnesty programs.
IMO, America will have surrendered to Mexico with passage of the Dream Act.
I can not believe that more people are not OUTRAGED over this?? What in the heck is going on?? These "open borders/amnesty" Senators are trying to sneak/RAM AMNESTY down our throats!! (Sorry for the yelling but I am just in dis-belief and frustrated that this does not seem to be as big as an issue as what we had in June and this is basically the same thing). I really hope more people start getting the message and starts calling their senators before it is too late. I called Cornyn's office and they said they were flooded with calls opposing it. I called McCain's office and they have not gotten as many calls but quit a few opposing it. Then I called Kay Bailey's office and there have been many calls but about even on people supporting and opposing. So these amnesty groups are calling trying to counter what few calls we have made. I have been calling radio stations in my area just trying to get them talking about it and inform more people. I called one station and they did not even know what I was talking about!!! They all seem to be more occupied with O.J. Simpson. UNBELIEVABLE!! If we could just get more calling on our side, we hopefully can shut this thing down. So I am crying out HELP! HELP!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Yes, they are trying to attach it to the Defense Authorization Bill being discussed right now. For additional information, go to www.numbersusa.com
Erik
I don't see Hispanics voting Republican just because someone in our party offers amnesty to illegals. Most Hispanics vote Democrat for reasons that have very little to do with illegal immigration and that's not going to change any time soon.
I lived in El Paso (85% Latino) in 2000 and at that time (then Governor) Bush was supposedly doing everything right when it came to courting the Hispanic vote. Did El Paso (of any heavily Hispanic-populated county) turn out to be a red county? Nope. Not by a long shot.
Democrats win votes by pandering. Republicans win votes by educating the people as to why our ideas are better. Democrats can't win in the arena of ideas, and they know it. That's why they pander - it's so much easier. Educating the public, especially with most of the media actively against us, it an uphill battle but it MUST be done. I'm just waiting for our so-called "leadership" to start........
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
Bush did very well with Latino voters in Texas. Remember, we win with Latinos not by winning but by not losing. Imagine if we got 30% of the African-American vote; the GOP would never lose. Now imagine if we nationally got only 8-10% of the Latino vote; we'd never win.
We don't need to do a full pander. But, to pick an example, we need a presidential candidate who can and will say and convincingly demonstrate the belief that substantial legal immigration from Mexico is a good thing. If we communicate the opposite message, we are toast.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I haven't heard enough coverage of any candidate from either party saying that substantial legal immigration from Mexico is a good thing. That might be enough to override Hispanic hesitation to lean right.
...while taking a tough stand on the border and illegal immigration.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
We've been over this. The numbers do not support the claim that red states are at risk over the Hispanic vote. Most states do not have a Hispanic population large enough to effect the vote either way.
Here's the numbers on red states
Here's the numbers on blue states
Bottom line: Most red states will stay red with or without the Hispanic vote and most blue states will stay blue with or without the Hispanic vote.
A few things such "We need to pander--and pander hard--for the Hispanic vote" analysis never seem to address:
1) In red states with large Hispanic populations, doesn't that mean the Hispanics have to be voting Republican in large numbers? So, why don't we expand on why they are already voting Republican rather than charge off to find some new reason for them to vote Republican?
2) If super-majorities of the base oppose amnesty, and passing amnesty will lose their vote, how will the Hispanic vote make up for huge losses of base votes in Ohio (Pop. 11.5 million; Hispanic: 2.3% or 263,994. Margin for Bush over Kerry: 18,599), Iowa (Pop. 2.99 million; Hispanic: 3.7% or 110,337. Margin for Bush over Kerry: 10,059), Missouri (Pop. 5.8 million; Hispanic: 2.7% or 157,753. Margin for Bush over Kerry: 196,542.), or even possibly Louisiana (Pop. 4.3 million; Hispanic: 2.8% or 120,058. Margin for Bush over Kerry: 281,870.) where not much of a drop in base votes pushes those state to the Democrat column?
3) How does angering the base help the Republican party in purple states--with low Hispanic populations--that went to Kerry such as Pennsylvania (Pop. 12.4 million; Hispanic: 4.1% or 510,065.Margin for Kerry over Bush: 144,248., Wisconsin (Pop. 5.6 million; Hispanic: 4.5% or 250,043. Margin for Kerry over Bush: 11,384) or Minnesota (Pop. 5.2 million; Hispanic: 3.6 or 186,016. Margin for Kerry over Bush: 98,319)?
Exactly what kind of electoral success strategy proposes to give up sure votes in every state for a shot--a chance, no guarantee--at a mythical 40% of what is a minor demographic in most states?
It's the "Who they gonna vote for, Democrats?" attitude toward the base that worked so well in 2006 and that attitude is alive and well still.
I don't have time just now to go through your numbers, but (1) the 2000/2004 red/blue map gives us a pitiably small margin for error, as we saw in 2006, and (2) you ignore at your peril the long-term internal migration of Latinos - I bet a lot of Latinos in Colorado came there from living for some time in Arizona and New Mexico, for example. Internal migration of all sorts of people has undermined prior GOP dominance in NH, CO, VA, and NC, for example.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Are sites out there where they've crunched the numbers?
What are the views of Hispanic immigrants legally in the U.S.? Of those born here? How many vote? And along what party lines? What issues tend to be important to that voting bloc?
It strikes me as a straw-man argument, that immigrants who came here legally, that went through the process, would support illegal immigration. But they might. Are there studies on this?
And, even if illegal immigration is accepted, what about criminal activity and deportation of criminals?
So far, the open-borders/amnesty crowd has tried to paint the whole Hispanic community as favoring illegal immigration. We've seen politicians pander to La Raza and other fringe organizations as if they represent the core values of the Hispanic community. Or do they?
I'm not convinced that the Hispanic community living here legally, having gone through the process of naturalization, want amnesty.
R.J.
The right question is: "How much are GOP ideals worth to Hispanic voters?"
I would opt that we shouldn't be discussing the "worth" of a voter, that simply implies that we're buying votes. That's a Democratic operation. We should be working on selling GOP ideals v. Dem ideals to voters. Until we do that, we're destined to get way less than 50% of minority voters.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
People,
We're talking about the country. Who cares about the GOP? Some of you assume that all Hispanics think alike. They do not. I have friends of many ethnic backgrounds and Patriots of all stripes should stand up and defend the rule of law. Do you remember what tancredo said at the last debate on Fox? "It's about the rule of law..does anybody get that"? We're talking about the country as we know it dissappearing because of complete greed and disrespect for our own borders, language and culture. Pandering to a class of people will not help our country. We need to be one people united as citizens with a value on citizenship. Selling entry and citizenship for five ten or even fifteen thousand dollars while allowing invader criminals to stay in this country is suicidal for any people. Does anybody rember the Roman empire? Increasing legal immigration is not the answer at this point in time. We need a time out for assimilation. The idiotic multi-culturalism and welfare from the left that has infected this country over the last 40 years substantially inhibits assimilation and the melting pot from working. Thanks to Ted Kennedy we now find ourselves overwelmed. We take in more people from around the world than any other country in the world. Enough is Enough! As an Anglo White Saxon of Western European decent and who's ancestors have been in this country for almost 400 years I am not willing to let invaders of any nation ruin my country and what my ancestors built over that time. Don't tell me my ancestors came here illegally because they didn't. Whatever laws were or were not in place at the time, they followed. You want to say well, the indians we're here before them. Well, I say fine...they had a failing culture that failed to perpetuate its language and culture. Every nation on earth is a nation of immigrants. As for borders..I beleive they had a different concept of that idea. If you value a sovereign nation you should wake up and support the enforcement of immigration law and realize that amnesty and legalization only begets more illegal immigration. We all want a better life wherever we are. Those who invade my country need to stay home and fix their own. Do you seriously think that Mexico would allow what is going on here to happen down there? Not on your life! Wake up if you want to recognize your country in 20 years. Yes, Chris Cannon I like my country the way it is and I don't want to change it. That does not mean that I am afraid of change. I am only afraid of guys like you that pander to illegality and excuse lawbreakers and invaders of my nation. This anchor baby problem is going to come back to haunt us if we don't stop it also. Of course any of us who have really studied the issue know that its all just part of the North American Union Bush and the other elites are trying to shove down our throats. When are we going to learn? It really is the Death of the West. Start having babies if you want to survive. We the people have a right to decide who, what where and when others are allowed to join us in this grand American experiment. It should not be the other way around.
Bye.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
with the blamstick...
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Where do you find "racism" in Patriot1964's statement? (Assuming of course that is who you are referring to when you say "Do you disavow the racist part")
As an Anglo White Saxon of Western European decent and who's ancestors have been in this country for almost 400 years I am not willing to let invaders of any nation ruin my country and what my ancestors built over that time.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
As a Hispanic man of Mexican decent and who's ancestors have been in this country for almost 400 years I am not willing to let invaders of any nation ruin my country and what my ancestors built over that time.
Would that be racist as well?
There always seems to be a double standard in this country on these sorts of things and I am just wondering if you would have noticed it as being racist if it would have been worded this way. I am not trying to argue with you, I am just curious.
Stick around RS a bit. I rail harder on La Raza and their pet Lindsey more than anyone.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
but, when we have 3.4 to 5.7% of our population here illegally we do indeed have a huge issue. They are not citizens of our country, they have crossed our border not as an army, but with many looking for opportunities that do not exist where they came from. If we pandered to them with the comprehensive immigration reform act, we may have gotten a few votes. But, the danger we may now face as the "obstructionists" in keeping the law sacrosanct is losing a large bloc of voters.
That 5% will continue to grow over time if we are not able to stop and reverse the tide. If dissatisfied, the 5% may become extremely dangerous (look at France).
But, I don't think the comments were racist...he doesn't target a specific group, and the illegal people here in the U.S. don't belong to only one nationality.
Erik
by and large they came over the Southern Border and about 30% of Mexico's GDP comes from money transfers sent from the US to Mexico by illegal aliens.
Come hell or high water, if you want immigration law enforced you will be painted as racist or "anti-Hispanic". Just the way life is. We need more high profile Norwegians sneaking in over the Canadian border to offset the issue.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Not majority support, mind you, but at least a competitive share.
I think the relevant issue is how to peel off Latinos who are repelled by harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric but who themselves came here legally and are supportive of enforcing the law. That means finding a middle path that improves and increases legal immigration and things like guest worker plans while at the same time controlling the border. It may also mean a path to legalization, but one that requires the applicant to cross substantial hurdles.
I hardly think that Rudy, at any rate, has crossed the line to being unduly anti-immigrant.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill