Comments on: The Weekly Standard Has a Post Up on The Campaign Standard Blog Dealing With an Interesting Paradox for GOP Candidates on the Subject of Immigration http://www.patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/ Harangues that just make sense Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:37:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: whitd http://www.patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306587 whitd Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:20:51 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306587 "But liberalized naturalization of Hispanics in the lead up to the 1996 election cycle had nothing to do with it?" It could have. You'd expect the naturalization numbers to rise dramatically following dramatic rises in applications. People who got the 86 amnesty started being eligible in the early 90's. I don't think, though, that lax border enforcement in the 90's has anything to do with naturalizations. As to the republican loss in california, there could be several factors. Such as people not liking republicans. and Prop 187. “But liberalized naturalization of Hispanics in the lead up to the 1996 election cycle had nothing to do with it?”

It could have. You’d expect the naturalization numbers to rise dramatically following dramatic rises in applications. People who got the 86 amnesty started being eligible in the early 90’s. I don’t think, though, that lax border enforcement in the 90’s has anything to do with naturalizations.

As to the republican loss in california, there could be several factors. Such as people not liking republicans. and Prop 187.

]]> By: WLS http://www.patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306439 WLS Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:15:26 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306439 James B. Shearer -- the fact that Bush 43 has been bad on border enforcement doesn't change the fact that lax border enforcement began under Clinton. I'm not defending Bush 43 Admin. policies, but I lived through Clinton Admin. immigration policies in the 1990s in Central California, and I work(ed) in the business so don't tell me what happened. It was a commonly joked about subject that INS Naturalization proceedings throughtout 1995 and 1996 were moved from a courtroom in the Federal Building to a convention center auditorium, and eventually to a college football stadium because the number of newly naturalized citizens and their families increased from several dozen to several hundred to eventually several thousand -- all in time for the 1996 election season. This happened up and down California. Or do you think the following is simply coincidental? The numbers are GOP %, Dem %, and 3rd Party % 1968: 48 -- 44 -- 7 (Wallace) 1972: 55 -- 42 1976: 49 -- 48 1980: 53 -- 36 -- 9 (Anderson) 1984: 58 -- 41 1988: 52 -- 48 1992: 33 -- 46 -- 21 (Perot) Avg: 50 -- 43 1996: 38 -- 51 -- 7 (Perot) 2000: 42 -- 53 -- 4 (Nader) 2004: 44 -- 54 Avg: 41 -- 53 So, since 1996, the GOP has lost an average of 9 points off its Calif. vote total, whereas the Dems have gained 10 points. No Dem candidate for Pres. had garnered 50% of the popular vote in Calif. during 7 elections between 1968 and 1992 -- with only two reaching as high as 48 -- but 3 Dem candidates since 1996 have all broken the 50% threshold while winning in the state comfortably. But liberalized naturalization of Hispanics in the lead up to the 1996 election cycle had nothing to do with it? James B. Shearer — the fact that Bush 43 has been bad on border enforcement doesn’t change the fact that lax border enforcement began under Clinton.

I’m not defending Bush 43 Admin. policies, but I lived through Clinton Admin. immigration policies in the 1990s in Central California, and I work(ed) in the business so don’t tell me what happened.

It was a commonly joked about subject that INS Naturalization proceedings throughtout 1995 and 1996 were moved from a courtroom in the Federal Building to a convention center auditorium, and eventually to a college football stadium because the number of newly naturalized citizens and their families increased from several dozen to several hundred to eventually several thousand — all in time for the 1996 election season.

This happened up and down California.

Or do you think the following is simply coincidental? The numbers are GOP %, Dem %, and 3rd Party %

1968: 48 — 44 — 7 (Wallace)
1972: 55 — 42
1976: 49 — 48
1980: 53 — 36 — 9 (Anderson)
1984: 58 — 41
1988: 52 — 48
1992: 33 — 46 — 21 (Perot)

Avg: 50 — 43

1996: 38 — 51 — 7 (Perot)
2000: 42 — 53 — 4 (Nader)
2004: 44 — 54

Avg: 41 — 53

So, since 1996, the GOP has lost an average of 9 points off its Calif. vote total, whereas the Dems have gained 10 points. No Dem candidate for Pres. had garnered 50% of the popular vote in Calif. during 7 elections between 1968 and 1992 — with only two reaching as high as 48 — but 3 Dem candidates since 1996 have all broken the 50% threshold while winning in the state comfortably.

But liberalized naturalization of Hispanics in the lead up to the 1996 election cycle had nothing to do with it?

]]> By: Taltos http://www.patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306432 Taltos Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:41:32 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306432 <i>This is partisan BS. Bush is worse than Clinton on illegals.</i> Step 1.) Find a dictionary. Step 2.) Look up the defintion of followed. This is partisan BS. Bush is worse than Clinton on illegals.

Step 1.) Find a dictionary.
Step 2.) Look up the defintion of followed.

]]> By: James B. Shearer http://www.patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306418 James B. Shearer Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:46:02 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306418 9 "... and lax border enforcement that followed Clinton’s election." This is partisan BS. Bush is worse than Clinton on illegals. 9

“… and lax border enforcement that followed Clinton’s election.”

This is partisan BS. Bush is worse than Clinton on illegals.

]]> By: wls http://www.patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306409 wls Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:56:15 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306409 whitd -- there's no question that it was a Clinton Admin. policy. The issue was the backlog of naturalization applications that had built up since the 1986 amnesty, and lax border enforcement that followed Clinton's election. After Clinton was elected in 1992, but suffered huge losses in the mid-term election of 1994, there was a push made by Dems to bolster voter registration in California and elsewhere, and a huge uncaptured segment of potential voters were newly naturalized immigrants. When naturalizations were kicked into overdrive in 1995 and 1996, in case any of the new citizens were confused about who to thank, the Dem. Party of Calif. was stationed just outside the various venues with "Bill Clinton for President" buttons and bumper stickers, as well as voter registration materials. Do you think it was simple serendipity that led California to go from supporting Nixon, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush for Pres -- Deukmejian, Deukmejian, Wilson, Wilson for governor -- as well as a history of splitting its two Senators between the parties until the election of Feinstein and Boxer in 1992 -- to being basically non-competitive by the GOP at just about every level of state and federal government, with the exception of smaller Congressional Districts since 1996? whitd — there’s no question that it was a Clinton Admin. policy.

The issue was the backlog of naturalization applications that had built up since the 1986 amnesty, and lax border enforcement that followed Clinton’s election. After Clinton was elected in 1992, but suffered huge losses in the mid-term election of 1994, there was a push made by Dems to bolster voter registration in California and elsewhere, and a huge uncaptured segment of potential voters were newly naturalized immigrants.

When naturalizations were kicked into overdrive in 1995 and 1996, in case any of the new citizens were confused about who to thank, the Dem. Party of Calif. was stationed just outside the various venues with “Bill Clinton for President” buttons and bumper stickers, as well as voter registration materials.

Do you think it was simple serendipity that led California to go from supporting Nixon, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush for Pres — Deukmejian, Deukmejian, Wilson, Wilson for governor — as well as a history of splitting its two Senators between the parties until the election of Feinstein and Boxer in 1992 — to being basically non-competitive by the GOP at just about every level of state and federal government, with the exception of smaller Congressional Districts since 1996?

]]> By: tmac http://www.patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306394 tmac Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:06:56 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306394 House Policy Committee Policy Perspective Christopher Cox, Chairman Clinton Administration's Own Verdict: Damage From 'Citizenship USA' [INS] Can Never Be Undone May 12, 1997 Last year the press revealed rampant corruption and abuse in the Clinton Administration's scandal-wracked "Citizenship USA" program, a blatant attempt to naturalize a million prospective Clinton voters before the Presidential election. News reports showed: (1) that control of the supposedly non-partisan $95 million taxpayer-funded initiative was moved from the INS to the Clinton White House; (2) that the Administration turned naturalization over to advocacy groups linked to the Democratic Party; and (3) that the Administration failed to complete FBI background checks for nearly 20% of the record-breaking 1.05 million people naturalized in FY 1996. In the ensuing scandal, the Clinton Administration repeatedly promised wholesale reforms that would undo the damage from Citizenship USA and prevent future abuses. Now internal reports, outside reviews, and House and Senate hearings have revealed that these were hollow promises. By the Administration's own admission, the program remains a shambles, and the damage it has wrought can never be undone. See more here http://www.justice-denied.net/INSCorruption_01.htm House Policy Committee
Policy Perspective

Christopher Cox, Chairman

Clinton Administration’s Own Verdict:
Damage From ‘Citizenship USA’ [INS] Can Never Be Undone
May 12, 1997

Last year the press revealed rampant corruption and abuse in the Clinton Administration’s scandal-wracked “Citizenship USA” program, a blatant attempt to naturalize a million prospective Clinton voters before the Presidential election.
News reports showed: (1) that control of the supposedly non-partisan $95 million taxpayer-funded initiative was moved from the INS to the Clinton White House; (2) that the Administration turned naturalization over to advocacy groups linked to the Democratic Party; and (3) that the Administration failed to complete FBI background checks for nearly 20% of the record-breaking 1.05 million people naturalized in FY 1996.
In the ensuing scandal, the Clinton Administration repeatedly promised wholesale reforms that would undo the damage from Citizenship USA and prevent future abuses. Now internal reports, outside reviews, and House and Senate hearings have revealed that these were hollow promises. By the Administration’s own admission, the program remains a shambles, and the damage it has wrought can never be undone.

See more here

http://www.justice-denied.net/INSCorruption_01.htm

]]> By: whitd http://www.patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306382 whitd Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:12:42 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306382 "whitd — naturalization hearings in central Calif. were moved from courtrooms to stadiums to accommodate the huge numbers." And you think this was a clinton administration policy to move naturalizations faster for political purposes, not any other reason (say, like, there being lots of applicants, there being a backlog, etc...). I've heard its harder now. But I think its 9/11. Not nativism. Do you have numbers on naturalization? “whitd — naturalization hearings in central Calif. were moved from courtrooms to stadiums to accommodate the huge numbers.”

And you think this was a clinton administration policy to move naturalizations faster for political purposes, not any other reason (say, like, there being lots of applicants, there being a backlog, etc…). I’ve heard its harder now. But I think its 9/11. Not nativism.

Do you have numbers on naturalization?

]]> By: atmom http://www.patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306350 atmom Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:03:04 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306350 Well said. Is this phenomenon also sometimes being characterized as the "Balkanization" of America? I prefer a brick house and english only. Well said. Is this phenomenon also sometimes being characterized as the “Balkanization” of America? I prefer a brick house and english only.

]]> By: fouse, gary c http://www.patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306343 fouse, gary c Tue, 11 Dec 2007 05:35:31 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306343 Shall we have a straw house, wood house or brick house?" With the primary season upon us, both major parties are now starting to make choices as to who will be the presidential nominee. There are many issues to consider, and different people have different opinions as to which issues are the most important. In my view, the two major issues facing America today are terrorism and illegal immigration. So to me, in choosing the best candidate (and party for that matter)I want to know who will do the best job in securing our borders and protecting the American people from future acts of terror. I already know which party will not do either of the above-the Democrats. Therefore, my choice (as an independent) is which Republican will fill the bill. I have yet to settle on one final candidate. I know there are many people out there who believe in open borders, sanctuary and amnesty for illegal aliens, as well as a diplomatic approach to the terrorism problem. I strongly disagree with those opinions. I have chosen the fairy tale of the Three Little Pigs to make my point. Is it simplistic? Sure it is, but often, truth is simple. The question I raise for all Americans is this: If you think we live in a dangerous world, where would you prefer to live-in a straw house, wood house or brick house? If you think we should be able to control who comes into our country, where would you prefer to live-in a straw house, wood house or brick house? If you think we could experience another 9-11, which house is preferred- straw house, wood house or brick house? Now if you are one who believes in open borders and a cessation of our War on Terror-involving our military, then in my view, a straw house is ok for you. Not for me. In this world we live in today, I feel we need a brick house. The only question for me in this election is- who will build the brick house? gary fouse fousesquawk Shall we have a straw house, wood house or brick house?”

With the primary season upon us, both major parties are now starting to make choices as to who will be the presidential nominee. There are many issues to consider, and different people have different opinions as to which issues are the most important. In my view, the two major issues facing America today are terrorism and illegal immigration. So to me, in choosing the best candidate (and party for that matter)I want to know who will do the best job in securing our borders and protecting the American people from future acts of terror. I already know which party will not do either of the above-the Democrats. Therefore, my choice (as an independent) is which Republican will fill the bill. I have yet to settle on one final candidate. I know there are many people out there who believe in open borders, sanctuary and amnesty for illegal aliens, as well as a diplomatic approach to the terrorism problem. I strongly disagree with those opinions.

I have chosen the fairy tale of the Three Little Pigs to make my point. Is it simplistic? Sure it is, but often, truth is simple. The question I raise for all Americans is this: If you think we live in a dangerous world, where would you prefer to live-in a straw house, wood house or brick house? If you think we should be able to control who comes into our country, where would you prefer to live-in a straw house, wood house or brick house? If you think we could experience another 9-11, which house is preferred- straw house, wood house or brick house?

Now if you are one who believes in open borders and a cessation of our War on Terror-involving our military, then in my view, a straw house is ok for you. Not for me.

In this world we live in today, I feel we need a brick house. The only question for me in this election is- who will build the brick house?

gary fouse
fousesquawk

]]> By: wls http://www.patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306336 wls Tue, 11 Dec 2007 05:18:33 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/12/10/the-weekly-standard-has-a-post-up-on-the-campaign-standard-blog-dealing-with-an-interesting-paradox-for-gop-candidates-on-the-subject-of-immigration/#comment-306336 whitd -- naturalization hearings in central Calif. were moved from courtrooms to stadiums to accommodate the huge numbers. whitd — naturalization hearings in central Calif. were moved from courtrooms to stadiums to accommodate the huge numbers.

]]>