Patterico's Pontifications

11/9/2008

Did Illegal Immigrants Decide This Election? The L.A. Times Seems Remarkably Incurious . . .

Filed under: Blogging Matters,Crime,Dog Trainer,General,Immigration — Patterico @ 1:51 pm

In a front-page article in today’s Sunday edition, the L.A. Times tells us that the Latino vote increased heavily in this past election. So much so, in fact, that Texas may be a battleground state in the future. The article explains:

A major shift in the Latino vote took place in Florida and the Southwest, where the Obama campaign spent at least $20 million on targeted appeals and organizing, including one television ad in the final days featuring the candidate reading Spanish from a script.

Latinos made up a greater share of the electorate than in the past in every Southwestern state, according to exit polls compiled by CNN.

What explains these increases? A massive in legal immigration? A massive increase in the turnout of legally registered Latino voters?

Might some part of the increase be due to illegal immigration?

The article seems remarkably uninterested in that last possibility.

The article does drop some hints, such as when we were told of Obama’s campaign: “Much of the campaign’s attention in that effort focused on Latinos in the Rio Grande Valley.” Which, it just so happens, is right next to Mexico.

But the article makes absolutely no effort to determine whether these numbers have been in any way affected by massive increases in illegal immigration over the past several years. Indeed, the subject of illegal immigration comes up only as a way to rebuke Republicans for focusing on it: “Many Latinos, for instance, are angry at Republicans for the harsh anti-illegal-immigration rhetoric used by some in the party in blocking a path to citizenship for undocumented workers.”

Several days ago, I asked you: “What do you think is the single greatest source of voter fraud in this country?” To me, the answer is obvious and intuitive: votes cast by illegal immigrants.

By all accounts there are far more than 10 million illegal immigrants in this country. Most estimates are around 12-13 million; some are 16-17 million; some are as high as 20 million. We have gotten about 500,000 new illegal immigrants per year every year since 2004; from 2000-2004 this number was even higher, ranging from 800,000 to 850,000 new illegals every year.

We all know that these illegals do much of what citizens do: drive, work, receive health care, etc.

Many do these things off the books, driving without licenses and working without documentation. But many others do these things with phony documentation, obtaining fraudulent licenses and filling out work papers with bogus information.

Why wouldn’t they vote, too?

It certainly seems logically possible that there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegal votes cast in this past election. If this is true, it is possible that illegal immigrants decided this election.

Tell me where I’m wrong.

But of course, none of this comes up in the article. This is a newspaper that loves to talk about the ills facing our society in general, and Southern California in particular — but somehow, the most obvious cause of those ills never gets mentioned.

P.S. You need to understand that this problem is self-perpetuating. The more illegal immigrants we let in, the more will vote. Even if you utterly discount the idea that illegal immigrants vote, it’s clear that Latinos in general are voting more heavily Democrat because they perceive an anti-immigrant bias from opposition to illegal immigration. See, for example, here (.pdf). This means that, more and more, politicians will feel the need to cater to that constituency. Meaning that our policies will get more and more lax still. Meaning still more illegal immigrants will be let in. And so on.

We have already lost the battle. We lost it long ago.

P.P.S. In the extended entry, I’ll take a quick stab at analyzing some of the numbers that the L.A. Times fails to analyze.

[Extended entry]

For some states, the article gives specific percentages of increases:

The Latino share of the vote nationally rose slightly from 2004, but the increases were sharpest in a few states: rising from 8% to 13% in Colorado, from 10% to 15% in Nevada, and from 32% to 41% in New Mexico.

Let’s look at Colorado, one of the three states for whom the paper gives numbers — and the linchpin of Obama’s Western state strategy.

According to FAIR, the estimated illegal alien population in 2007 was 270,000, or about 5.5% of the total state population of 4,861,515.

In addition, the number of foreign-born in the population was 508,480, meaning that the percentage of foreign-born who are illegal are 270,000/508,480, or about 53%.

FAIR also says: “The INS (now dissolved into the Dept. of Homeland Security) estimated in February 2003 that the resident illegal population in Colorado was 144,000 as of January 2000.” This means that there are 130,000 more illegal aliens in 2007 than in 2000. If the increase was steady, that would be about 18,571 people per year, or around 75,000 people since 2004.

Due to numbers I gave above, it is not quite a fair assumption that the increase has been steady. In the entire country, illegal alien increases of 850,000 per year from 2000-2004 gave way to increases of 500,000 per year from 2004-2007 — meaning that while there was an average increase of 700,000 per year (the total increase divided by 7) per year from 2000-2007, the average increase from 2004-2007 per year was only 500,000, or 71% of the average increase over the whole 7-year period. So if these numbers were true for Colorado, the average increase from 2004-2007 would be 13,185 illegals per year (71% of 18,571), or a total of 39,555 new illegals since 2004. (Births don’t count, since children born to illegals are considered legal.)

So we have just shy of 40,000 new illegal immigrants in Colorado since 2004.

Meanwhile, numbers from the Denver Post tell us that in 2004, there were 2,424,000 total registered voters in Colorado. 204,000 or those were registered Latino voters, and 165,000 of them voted. In 2007, there were 2,891,000 total registered voters in Colorado, an increase of 567,000. There were now 274,000 registered Latino voters, an increase of 70,000. Of registered voters, 8.4% were Latino in 2004, and 9.5% were Latino in 2007.

Does the increase of 70,000 new registered Latino voters from 2004 to 2007 have anything to do with the fact that the illegal population increased by almost 40,000 since 2004? I don’t know. But it wouldn’t surprise me at all.

At the very least, I’d like to see some discussion of these numbers in the L.A. Times.

I don’t know whether illegal immigrants decided this election. But certainly, if you take into account the phenomenon of legal Latinos voting Democrat because of the issue of illegal immigration, the case is pretty persuasive that this issue decided the election.

81 Comments

  1. I don’t think it’s very likely that millions or even hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens voted, and I’m waiting for someone to do a more thorough study to see what role the so-called Hispanic vote played.

    And, the problem with the entire issue is that people are going about it the wrong way. Ranting in echo chambers does nothing. Contacting representatives does something, but unless enough people do it or there’s money involved, politicians don’t listen.

    The solution to this problem and many other problems is to publicly discredit politicians over this issue. For instance, with this plan which, despite being something that would have prevented President Obama, was ignored by major bloggers, including those at The Corner. In fact, here’s a comment from Karl at this site: peekURL.com/z9mw7xm

    In the current case, someone can ask BHO about the march he attended (see my question from 2/07: youtube.com/watch?v=EiullH5jU1A), and point out that one of the Mexico-linked organizers also conducted a voter registration drive: 24ahead.com/blog/archives/008124.html

    When politicians start getting discredited over this issue – even minor, but nationally known politicians – things will change very quickly.

    Comment by 24AheadDotCom (078238) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:30 pm

  2. “Tell me where I’m wrong.”

    You’re wrong because you’re relying upon a statistical canard developed by the Pew Foundation and picked up by Census that will be utterly refuted when the 2010 Census is completed. The fact that you live in the center of a Mecca for illegals who are sheltered by local politicians makes your personal observations tie very well to the Pew model.

    Pew did precisely the same thing with illegals that they did in order to generate the “outpouring of support” for campaign finance reform which resulted in passage of the infamous McCain-Feingold Act.

    A review of kindergarten enrollment numbers coupled with an examination of Mexican Census statistics is one method of disproving the Pew hypothesis. The BLS trimming the entire workforce numbers back in January (by some 500K Hispanics) is another. They will continue to trim even more as the reality of the coming census approaches.

    Check the LA numbers of illegals giving birth against kindergarten enrollment of Hispanics. What you will find is a long term practice of Mexican women coming north to give birth in order to gain citizenship for their children. Then they go home and raise them in Mexico. The same thing happens along the border in AZ and TX and it’s the basis for the Pew projections.

    There is a very real illegal immigration problem but overstating the scope makes it appear insoluble. It isn’t but your home county is one of the biggest barriers to the solution in the entire US.

    Comment by Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:44 pm

  3. Rick,

    1) Are you suggesting we should rely on the Census as the authority of how many illegals there are?

    2) How would your numbers differ?

    3) Why do you think this analysis fits into the politics of my home? Do you somehow think I’m pro-illegal?!?!

    Comment by Patterico (962777) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:52 pm

  4. It would be ironic if illegal voters proved to be the difference. G.W. Bush and McCain were resistant to strengthening our borders.

    Comment by Ira (28a423) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:01 pm

  5. Prediction: One of BHO’s first acts will be to legalize the 10+ millions of illegals in the country. Never again will the term “illegal” be applied to them. Then, despite claims that they will get to the back of the line, that line will be very short, and they’ll have full voting rights before the 2010 elections. (McCain will support this.)

    Finally, the DNC will arrange to relocate significant numbers of new citizens to swing states, thereby putting them out of reach of the Stupid Party forever. (Well, forever is a long time, but certainly the remainder of my lifetime.)

    All this supported by the tax on that top 5% (or maybe top 50%?)

    Comment by ManlyDad (75cbfe) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:02 pm

  6. Rick, that is an interesting hypothesis that you have. Is there a site that has the kindegarten enrollment numbers to which you alluded? The LATimes published a piece several years back on how so many Mexican women were giving birth in the U.S. and returning to Mexico to raise the child, with the idea that their child can claim his or her citizen rights later and attend college or work in the U.S., but that demographic seemed to mostly be upper-class Mexicans. Do you think that this is happening with middle and lower-class Mexicans too?

    Comment by JVW (f93297) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:07 pm

  7. Never again will the term “illegal” be applied to them.

    Sorry ManlyDad, that boat already sailed.

    Comment by Mossberg500 (9fd170) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:09 pm

  8. ManlyDad, instead of swing states the DNC will seek to place them in Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and other GOP-leaning states in order to turn those states into swing states.

    Comment by JVW (f93297) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:13 pm

  9. I think it is a minor problem numbers-wise but it should never happen.

    I am personally aware of several hispanic people who claimed to have voted who I don’t think are here legally… but their claims come with the caveat that lots of hispanics wanted to be part of the Obama vote… kind of like it was American Idol for people of color so I know some people are lying about voting, but enough people who I work with claim to have voted that it seems likely that some activists found a flaw in the system and signed them up.

    All this stuff really points to the ease with which illegal immigrants who paid $50 for a fake SS# and got a CDL and a taxpayer ID number for a home purchase get into our system.
    I’m outraged if even one illegal found a way to vote…. and I’m very pro hispanic immigrant as a rule.

    Comment by SteveG (71dc6f) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:18 pm

  10. “1) Are you suggesting we should rely on the Census as the authority of how many illegals there are?”

    Absolutely not. They simply used the hypothesis generated by Pew – it’s circular reasoning.

    “2) How would your numbers differ?”

    Lower by about 25%. 7.5 – 8 million in 2000 rising by 150K-250K through ’05 and then dropping.

    “3) Why do you think this analysis fits into the politics of my home? Do you somehow think I’m pro-illegal?!?!”

    Home county. I understand and applaud your stand on illegal immigration. It’s LA County’s approach to “sanctuary” which has created the ugly mess which you have to deal with on a daily basis.

    JVW,

    Mexican Census Data

    Immigration Stats

    (You have to read how they determined that 500K per year increase in order to understand that it doesn’t even rise to SWAG status – it’s a wag based on Pew spew.)

    NCES School enrollment data

    “Do you think that this is happening with middle and lower-class Mexicans too?”

    Absolutely. In their shoes I would do exactly the same thing – especially given the fact that there is no cost involved to giving birth in the US. Who wouldn’t give their kid the opportunity involved?

    I don’t care to act as a thread thief – there was an illegal vote problem and it needs to be addressed, especially in the border states. I’m crossing my fingers and hoping to see some prosecutions and stiff sentences but I’m not holding my breath.

    I simply don’t care to exaggerate the scope of the problem of illegals to the point of “insoluble – grant them amnesty”. It ain’t insoluble. Round ‘em up, send them back and patrol the border more heavily.

    Comment by Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:31 pm

  11. “We have already lost the battle. We lost it long ago.”

    Not to bum you out, but I agree with this. Illegal Immigration is now a “civil right” and we all know how painful it can be for anyone, especially in public services, to be “anti-civil rights”.

    Now, if trends continue, we can always deny them by calling them Christianists instead of illegals.

    Comment by Mike Jackson (a7da41) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:49 pm

  12. You are now living in a Northern Province of Mexico. Expect Mexican legal and election practices to prevail here.

    Comment by Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 11/9/2008 @ 4:09 pm

  13. Why limit it to illegal immigrants? I’m sure there are legal immigrants and green card holders who voted too.

    Why don’t we just go with “non-citizen voters.”

    Fox News ran a story several weeks ago on a legal immigrant who was working towards citizenship that might have screwed everything up because she unwittingly registered to vote when she was getting a driver’s license. I’m not sure if she actually voted, but just registering as a non-citizen is a crime.

    Comment by Hoystory (08dea2) — 11/9/2008 @ 4:41 pm

  14. What’s interesting too is that they did not vote for the McCain, who authored and drove the shamnesty bill!

    This means one of two things, or maybe both: they don’t need amnesty (false IDs working just fine) and just want more government goodies; or, they vote based on what their community organizer (Acorn or La Raza) tells them to do and really have no clue about the issues. IMO, absentee ballots are a big source of organized, crooked voting.

    Comment by Patricia (ee5c9d) — 11/9/2008 @ 4:49 pm

  15. I don’t remember where I saw it but one of the best calculations done for how many illegals were in the country was where somebody took the 1984 baseline Hispanic population and just calculated the current population contribution based on nominal birth rates to Hispanic families.

    Then they looked up all the total ‘anchor babies’ to add to that number. Some families had multiple anchor babies at the same rate as nominal birth figures in the Hispanic Community.

    Their conclusion was that before the economy turned south there would likely be about 34 million illegals in the country due to the numbers over and above the projected nominal population growth.

    Comment by daytrader (ea6549) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:03 pm

  16. I heard from a good source that there were actually 8 billion in California alone.

    Comment by Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:16 pm

  17. Rick must not live in Southern Calif

    Hang around Santa Ana CA for a month and tell me if 8 billion seems like a low estimate or maybe a possibilty.
    Sometimes the demands illegals make on services seem to be multiplied by their sheer weight.

    I have almost zero impact on the services my community extends. Illegals have a huge impact on police, fire, ambulance, schools, traffic, grafitti removal, family services, child support, minimum wage pressure.
    As I said before, I am very much pro immigrant, but I’ve lived here over 50 years and am not blind to the impacts.
    Activists that are paid by the “voter” will sign up anyone with a CDL.

    Comment by SteveG (71dc6f) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:27 pm

  18. SteveG,

    Most of SoCal fits your description but most of the US does not. CA had 40% of the total illegal immigration population in 2000 and I don’t see why it would be any different today. It’s a fantastically heavy burden on local services. It’s unfortunate that CA politicians seem quite willing to impose such a burden upon the citizens of CA but the citizens of states with politicians possessing spines shouldn’t be picking up the cost Californians electing worms.

    Comment by Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:34 pm

  19. Some states are dealing with this issue. I don’t know how Texas or California (probably the two with the most problem) are doing it but in MO you now have to present either a birth certificate, a US passport, or a valid green card with your foreign passport to get a driver’s license.

    You obviously need a license to get auto insurance and you need to have proof of insurance to get your car registered. Gradually (as driver’s licenses expire) illegal immigrants will not be able to license their vehicles and probably will go to states that are less stringent on identification requirements.

    What I don’t understand is why we don’t have to show proof of citizenship to register to vote when we do have to in order to get a driver’s license.

    Comment by rls (14b9d3) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:49 pm

  20. Loretta Sanchez was elected to the US Congress in a hotly contest race in which at least 800 illegal immigrants voted for her. They never completed investigation and no one went to jail or was even charged with anything. The problem is, American citizens in California are outvoted by the illegal immigrants. We didn’t elect the politicians who did this to us, the illegal immigrants elected them. My grandson is the only child in his kindergarten class that in not in ESL (English as a Second Language class). One out of 35. This is not some little problem we are dealing with, it went to crisis stage a generation ago.

    Comment by tyree (e6a021) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:12 pm

  21. Comment by rls — 11/9/2008 @ 5:49 pm

    Anytime anyone tries to tighten the requirements for voter registration, the Dems start screaming “Poll Tax” and anything else from the 50′s they can slime people with. They know that there are a lot of non-citizens registered, they registered them. They do not want anything to upset this apple-cart. Plus, they always play the circular reasoning card re it can’t be a problem because nobody is ever prosecuted for it; whereas, nobody is ever prosecuted, because the Dems refuse to allow the passage of requirements with teeth in them.

    Comment by Another Drew (c881b0) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:14 pm

  22. I guess we could ask the question why – why – didn’t the hard working conservative hispanics decide to vote for Obama

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (cc9286) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:16 pm

  23. rls,

    OK seems to be doing very well. It also provides a point of information concerning Patterico’s hypothesis of the impact of the illegal vote – to include Green Card holders. The Dems lost control of the OK state legislature after the Reps pushed through tough legislation regarding undocumented workers.

    Comment by Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:17 pm

  24. __________________________________________

    “Many Latinos, for instance, are angry at Republicans for the harsh anti-illegal-immigration rhetoric used by some in the party in blocking a path to citizenship for undocumented workers.”

    I always thought that Bush’s former strategist, Karl Rove, was surprisingly naive or ignorant (perhaps even idiotic) when it came to his reported belief that in order to not alienate illegal immigrants from Mexico (and a huge percentage of the “undocumented” to the US are from that country) or central/South America in general, the Republican Party had to curry favor with them. He seemed to be clueless that huge numbers of people throughout Mexico have been favoring their version of the Democrat Party, and liberal politicians in general, for generations.

    In fact, that trend is even more one-sided than I realized until a few weeks ago. I originally believed Mexicans were starting to moderate their philosophy (no thanks to never-ending rates of crime, corruption and poverty that have plagued their nation under predominantly liberal-left governments and politicians) when for the first time ever in a presidential election they voted in favor of Mexico’s answer to a Republican or conservative (or quasi-conservative), Vincente Fox. But I didn’t realize that Fox actually became head of his country only because of legislative changes in the 1990s to make Mexico’s virtually one-party-only system less one sided. Consequently, Mexico’s large majority of liberal-leaning voters split their vote and Fox got into office by default.

    I also find it ironic and sadly amusing that the Los Angeles Times is dominated by reporters/employees who have a soft spot in their heart for the “undocumented.” Ironic because a region made up of increasingly poorly educated Latinos — traditionally apathetic towards the goals of higher learning — is even less ideal for the newspaper industry, particulary those parts of it supposedly dedicated to higher quality.
    __________________________________________

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:23 pm

  25. This may well be why the affirmative-action ban failed in Colorado.

    Thank you, Wall Street Journal Republicans.

    Comment by Alan (551a6d) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:25 pm

  26. As a former Human Resources director for a fairly large company with offices across America one of my duties was to screen every employee’s social security status periodically. And we’re not talking farming jobs here, we’re talking about a competitive waged music/entertainment industry company. If I had a dollar for every person I had to either not hire or had to fire due to false use of another’s social security number I’d be rich right now. It was a serious eye-opener for me on just how big the problem really is and the offices were located in places like Reno,NV, Denton and Amarillo,TX, Atlanta,GA, Denver,CO, etc. And that was roughly 10 years ago, I’d hate to think of what the ratio is now. And the thing that really ticked me off what that due to a confidentiality clause I only had the power to not hire or to fire, I could not report it and I’m sure the problem has only gotten worse since. It has to be stopped, regardless of the voting issue which is an atrocity in and of itself but how many American’s would no longer be jobless if someone in Washington would just have the balls to deal with the issue. Sickens me.

    As for the context of this blog, yes, I think it is plausible that illegal voting was a factor and I think it somehow needs to be fixed before the next election, I just don’t know what the answer on fixing it is other than pushing my representative’s repeatedly to do something about it. If enough people are writing/calling/emailing their reps. then maybe we can get it addressed… but I’m not holding my breath.

    Comment by A Californian (485ef9) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:38 pm

  27. Comment by Mark — 11/9/2008 @ 6:23 pm

    As the circulation of the English-language LAT slowly declines, they look forward to making it up with increased circulation of the Spanish-language La Opinion.
    BTW, the top Arbitron ratings for AM-radio in SoCal are all Spanish-language stations, located here in SoCal.

    Comment by Another Drew (c881b0) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:46 pm

  28. Technically, your hypothesis is valid only if it turns out that “non citizen voters” (sounds too euphemistic, but I can’t think of a better phrase at the moment)voted in sufficient numbers to turn all those states that voted for Bush into 2004 into Obama states this year. That might be the case in New Mexico or Colorado, but Ohio? Florida possibly–but I think that here in Florida felons who shouldn’t be voting were a bigger problem.

    Also remember that illegals are not the problem they are in California everywhere else.

    And why are Hispanics voting Democrat? Because of GOP failures. A lot of anti-illegal rhetoric often sounds like anti-Hispanic, or at least anti-Mexican rhetoric: like pure xenophobia. (Not normally at this site, I should add, and when it does appear, it’s only in some comments.)And unless and until the GOP embraces a program that makes clear it supports legal immigration and legal immigrants, Hispanics are going to suspect it of xenophobia. And while calling for increased enforcement may sound logical, that’s not the way to do it.

    Remember this fact: people will always come here as long as it’s economically worthwhile for them to come here. Increasing the obstacles doesn’t decrease the number of immigrants; it just makes more of them come illegally. Take a note of how the bad economy is on its own shrinking the number of immigrants, and think out the implications of that. But when the economy starts going up again, the immigrants will come back, because it’s better for them. If you want to permamently discourage immigration, you can make the US into a third world country, but I suspect none of us want that. Otherwise there are only two things to do–help the home countries become more prosperous, so more people will find it worthwhile to stay home, and make it easier to come to this country legally. The more people who can come here legally, the less who will need to try to do so illegally. Match legal immigration to economic demand, or else you are simply doing a Canute to the incoming sea.

    Comment by kishnevi (2c3adb) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:47 pm

  29. BTW, Florida is also doing what rls mentions in comment 19.

    Comment by kishnevi (2c3adb) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:49 pm

  30. Comment by kishnevi — 11/9/2008 @ 6:47 pm

    One of the underlying reasons for the creation of NAFTA was to improve economic conditions in Mexico, so that there would be jobs there to provide the support that prviously was found in El Norte. Illegal immigration in the ten years after NAFTA was larger than in the ten years before. So much for that theory.

    The only way to stop it is absolute, strict, verification of employment eligibility.
    No valid docs – No job!
    Plus, enforcement of identity theft statutes against anyone who presents a phony ID, with real jail time, mandatory deportation if not a citizen, and permanent revocation of travel privileges to the USA.

    Comment by Another Drew (c881b0) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:57 pm

  31. more…
    Plus, prosecution of all employers found to have illegals on the payroll through skirting of the pre-employment screening. Chronic offenders to lose their business licenses.

    Comment by Another Drew (c881b0) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:59 pm

  32. In the mainly rural NW corner of Ohio there are now health centers specifically for the Spanish speaking population. There obviously is an influx of recent immigrants.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:02 pm

  33. He seemed to be clueless that huge numbers of people throughout Mexico have been favoring their version of the Democrat Party, and liberal politicians in general, for generations.

    I’m agreeing with Mark–the rationale of the immigrant voter is influenced more by their native culture than their adopted (barely) culture.

    Comment by Patricia (ee5c9d) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:09 pm

  34. _______________________________

    And why are Hispanics voting Democrat? Because of GOP failures.

    And do most predomiantly Latino (and also black) communities throughout America often give a majority of their votes — predictably and blindly — to Democrats/liberals because urban areas like LA, NY, Chicago, etc, have been run by (or are run by) Republicans/conservatives? And do the people of such areas now love Democrats because, unlike the Republicans (who’ve ruled large cities until, oh, about only 3 to 5 years ago), they’ve created communities highly valued for their low unemployment rates, safety, prosperity, quality of schools, wonderful housing!??

    Meanwhile, a lot of the people of Mexico, largely responsible for making a mess of their country (by always favoring the ideology of lazy liberalism, sloppy Socialism, and voting accordingly), have no choice but to look to greener pastures in the US. So they relocate here for jobs and a life. And then their simpleminded voting patterns eventually will screw up this country, and the cycle of never-ending dysfunction — including excessive rates of crime and low achievement in school — will continue all over again.
    _______________________________

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:10 pm

  35. Comment by Mark — 11/9/2008 @ 7:10 pm

    Mark, you’re seriously mistaken as to the GOP running major urban areas for any length of time.
    Prior to Guiliani, the previous GOP Mayor in NYC was Lindsey back in the 60′s, and he was considered a “Limosine Liberal”, as is the current Mayor, who was a Democrat before he was a Republican, before he was/is an Independent (Bloomberg).
    L.A. has only had one GOP Mayor that I can remember in my lifetime, who at best was a Centrist.
    The legislative bodies, and the school districts of virtually all major urban areas of the country have been run by Democrats since the Great Depression. Occassionally, these cities will elect a Republican as Mayor just to get the place back on an even keel again. Then, they once again elect a Democrat, and the cycle into dispair renews.

    Comment by Another Drew (c881b0) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:22 pm

  36. _______________________________

    Mark, you’re seriously mistaken as to the GOP running major urban areas for any length of time.

    I was being sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek!

    However, New York City’s current mayor is registered as a Republican. But that’s true only because he changed his party affiliation in order to worm his way into running against a slate of rival Democrats. And Richard Riordan of LA, who I think saved the city in the early 1990s the same way that Rudy Giuliani saved NYC from leftism run amok, are, as you say, centrists. And it’s only by the standards of monolithic liberalism found in most urban areas that those two politicians would be seen as “conservative” or staunch Republicans.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:34 pm

  37. I hate to needlessly offend anyone, but, like I said above, “Ranting in echo chambers does nothing.”

    Most people here know there’s a problem. However, no one except me came up with a solution. Can I suggest coming up with solutions and then concentrating on following through?

    Comment by 24AheadDotCom (e10679) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:54 pm

  38. Comment by Mark — 11/9/2008 @ 7:34 pm

    Sorry, I missed the satire.
    Bloomberg, as I recall, re-registered as an Independent for his first re-election. Who knows what he’ll be for his second re-election (term-limits are only for “little people”).

    Comment by Another Drew (c881b0) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:59 pm

  39. “Does the increase of 70,000 new registered Latino voters from 2004 to 2007 have anything to do with the fact that the illegal population increased by almost 40,000 since 2004? I don’t know. But it wouldn’t surprise me at all.”

    How much did the Latino citizen population increase? As a swing state, I’d imagine CO was a central focus on GOTV and registration efforts.

    Comment by imdw (665d06) — 11/9/2008 @ 8:13 pm

  40. Re–30.
    I’d say that NAFTA hasn’t really improved things in Mexico, and therefore hasn’t decreased the incentive to migrate north.
    Certainly we don’t have whole swathes of territory, even in the inner cities, where police allow criminal gangs to run free because 1)the gangs are better armed and 2)they also pay better.

    Re–34
    Minority politicians are an important breed in urban politics. Minority politicians tend to be Democrats. Therefore minorities tend to vote Democratic because they vote for the minority politicians, who deliver the pelf to them.

    If the GOP can ever develop policies that appeal to minorities, or at least take their sensibilities into account (for instance, by making sure people understand that while they are against illegal immigration, they are for legal immigration), and recruit minority politicians to preach those policies, then it has a chance.

    Comment by kishnevi (2c3adb) — 11/9/2008 @ 8:27 pm

  41. “it’s clear that Latinos in general are voting more heavily Democrat because they perceive an anti-immigrant bias from opposition to illegal immigration.”

    I don’t think that’s clear at all. It seems much more likely that they vote Democratic for the reason poor people in general do so – because the Dems are the party which promises goodys to the poor. I think I’ve seen studies which indicate exactly that.

    But it’s certain that some of the illegals are voting.

    Comment by Subotai (84db50) — 11/9/2008 @ 10:02 pm

  42. “And why are Hispanics voting Democrat? Because of GOP failures. A lot of anti-illegal rhetoric often sounds like anti-Hispanic, or at least anti-Mexican rhetoric: like pure xenophobia.”

    Nonsense. Hispanics have been voting for Dems as far back as I’ve been able to find records. They voted heavily against Reagan, both times. They voted heavily against Bush 41 in the aftermath of the 1986 amnesty. They voted against Bush Jr, both times. They voted against Mayor Guliani in both his NY elections. Voting against McAmnesty was simply a continuation of their normal behavior.

    Their voting pattern has nothing to do with all this alleged “racism” in the GOP. Incidently, I notice that people most eager to tell Hispanics that the GOP is racist are …. liberal Republicans! Way to win them over to the GOP, guys.

    Comment by Subotai (84db50) — 11/9/2008 @ 10:12 pm

  43. kishnevi says: If the GOP can ever develop policies that appeal to minorities, or at least take their sensibilities into account

    It’s actually easier than that. All the GOP has to do is find community leaders who represent their communities and who want to the official go-to people for the GOP. They can act as a go-between those communities and the GOP leadership, doling out favors in exchange for votes. McCain has some experience with that, since he went to LaRaza looking for votes. Plus, the GOP could seek to divide the electorate into smaller groups in order to win, even reaching out to large but underserved communites.

    Alternatively, the GOP could decide to become a big tent, pro-American party that not only didn’t engage in corporate pluralism and balkanization but also realized the vital importance of vigorously discrediting those who did.

    But, since the first plan is better for crooked businesses, I guess that’s the best one.

    Comment by 24AheadDotCom (62c4c5) — 11/9/2008 @ 10:19 pm

  44. This is no longer an issue. What is to prevent amnesty for all of them? What???

    Nothing.

    Has that not been a Democratic goal for years? Does anyone think they will ever have a better chance?

    This issue will be lost in a sea of change this winter. One thing leads to another.

    Comment by Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:01 am

  45. Why are you going on about illegal aliens voting, as if legal aliens aren’t also likely to be voting, in even greater numbers? After all, legal aliens have no need to stay out of the notice of officialdom; and with the Motor-voter law they get signed up when they get their license, and may even genuinely not have understood (or even been told) that they’re not entitled to vote. I have no proof, but it seems to me that that is a greater problem than illegal immigrants voting. Or rather, a bigger part of the same problem.

    The only way I can think of to solve it is to require voters seeking to be registered to show proof of citizenship, as well as identity.

    Comment by Milhouse (89df7f) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:07 am

  46. I have a hard time believing that 10s or 100s of thousands of people who are in this country illegally would actually choose to put their name in a government database (especially one which provides no cash or health or other benefits) and thus coming to the attention of authorities in some way.

    Now, legal non-citizen immigrants, that I could see, but of course that’s a different story. As one commenter up-thread noted, given the motor-voter laws, it’s probably hard for legal, non-citizen immigrants NOT to register, even when they want to do the right thing.

    Comment by PatHMV (653160) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:17 am

  47. “I have a hard time believing that 10s or 100s of thousands of people who are in this country illegally would actually choose to put their name in a government database”

    They don’t have to give their real name.

    They already have a name in all sorts of government databases, as well as fake SSN’s in the SSN database.

    But yes, legal aliens can easily vote also if they want to. The GOP was handed a glorious chance to address all this between 2002-2006. What did they do instead? They actually encouraged illegal immigration. “Stupid party” does not begin to describe them.

    Comment by Subotai (8569a9) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:52 am

  48. How in this economy are the democrats going to justify legalizing illegal immigrants when almost every one of them will immediately go on public assistance or most certainly fall in the bottom 40% of people who pay no income taxes at all? How are they going to justify this? On top of that as unemployment soars, especially for black people and young people, how are they going to justify adding millions of people to compete against citizens for the low paying jobs?

    Comment by dianne (37ccab) — 11/10/2008 @ 7:57 am

  49. While Illegals voting is a problem (and has been a problem in the last several election cycles), the bigger question is where did Obama’s overwhelming campaign contributions originate. I’ve seen some numbers that he spent $600M on the election compared to McCain’s $100M. However, judging from the number of commercials on TV and radio in CA and MT (both of which were unimportant) and advertisements and phone bank calls, I think the funding maybe 10:1 or more.

    Several issues might indicate that Obama’s funding advantage is outside America. First is the issue that big bucks were spent in the primaries (in bad economic times, do peope have unlimited giving). Second is that the wave of spending was several times the typical with no increase in Republican spending. Third, there was not a tremendous increase in voting numbers which might explain new funding sources from previous election cycles. Finally, why did Obama allow for the $200 credit card exception?

    And for yet another example of liberal bias in the MSM, why doesn’t the media pursue this story and condemn the Obama campaign for violating the FEC laws that they so lavishly demanded? –this probably isn’t a question

    Comment by jkstewart2 (aff5bd) — 11/10/2008 @ 7:59 am

  50. So we discount the fact that there is an emergence of a law abiding, hard working (like there illegal parents), voting Mexican American citizenry, that happen to approve of Democrat policies?

    Please remember how a lot of these Mexican American Citizens grew up.

    Parents worked hard, albeit illegally, but for small wages and for Rich Americans.

    Why would they vote Republican? Especially in States like Texas.

    No, no no…… check the numbers again.

    And you guys think we whined in 2000 and 2004.

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 11/10/2008 @ 9:57 am

  51. Translation of Oiram’s post: Who gives a fuck if they’re illegal?

    [BTW, a review of "there, they're & their" is warranted.]

    Comment by Icy Truth (aedb2f) — 11/10/2008 @ 10:02 am

  52. Hmmm. Thought experiment here. What would the DNC nabobs say if there were a huge group of illegals coming in, voting Republican. Do you think there would be hearings and actions regarding the “rule of law”?

    Yup.

    Comment by Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/10/2008 @ 10:13 am

  53. “I’d say that NAFTA hasn’t really improved things in Mexico,”

    Kishnevi,

    You may say what you wish. The facts say otherwise. From the CIA Factbook

    Trade with the US and Canada has tripled since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. Mexico has 12 free trade agreements with over 40 countries including, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, the European Free Trade Area, and Japan, putting more than 90% of trade under free trade agreements.

    A quick glance at this per capita GDP chart confirms the value of NAFTA to the Mexican economy. The evidence that the money is flowing to “the people” rather than “the rich” consists of the fertility rate (births per woman, age 14-45) dropping from over 3 ten years ago to 2.1 today (peer Mexican census reports). That’s the same rate as the US and can only be partially explained by the Mexican government’s contraception program.

    The complete demographic consequences of the economic improvement coupled with the fall in fertility rates will start to show up in about four years wrt illegal immigration. That will be about the same time that the impact of the small size of the cohort which will begin entering the workforce in 2010 will begin to be felt.

    Comment by Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/10/2008 @ 10:15 am

  54. #51 Untrue ICY,

    Actually, I care who is voting illegally, but I also care who is voting legally by way of natural citizenship.

    I think you and possibly Patterico is overlooking the fact that there has been a few generations now of legal natural U.S. citizens born by and large from illegal parents, but none the less perfectly within their rights to vote on their U.S. election.

    Sure the fact that they tend to vote Democrat benefits our position……….

    Sorry, live with it, or work to change it.

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 11/10/2008 @ 10:46 am

  55. #51 By the way ICY, you’re still right about at least one thing, I do need to work On my there’s.

    I’m still trying to fix that, thanks.

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 11/10/2008 @ 10:52 am

  56. How in this economy are the democrats going to justify legalizing illegal immigrants when almost every one of them will immediately go on public assistance or most certainly fall in the bottom 40% of people who pay no income taxes at all?

    I don’t know.

    Oiram?

    Comment by Subotai (a878b1) — 11/10/2008 @ 11:58 am

  57. there has been a few generations now of legal natural U.S. citizens born by and large from illegal parents

    Your facts are as sloppy as your spelling and grammar. There have been several amnesties within recent memory. Unless Mexicans have the life span of fruit flies, your claim cannot be true.

    Comment by Subotai (a878b1) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:03 pm

  58. I think you and possibly Patterico is overlooking the fact that there has been a few generations now of legal natural U.S. citizens born by and large from illegal parents, but none the less perfectly within their rights to vote on their U.S. election.

    – Growing up and living most of my life just 65 miles from the US-Mexico border, I am well aware of the situation.

    [And it's: I think you, and possibly Patterico, are overlooking the fact . . . (grammar-police lesson for the day)]

    Comment by Icy Truth (aedb2f) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:11 pm

  59. Comment by Icy Truth — 11/10/2008 @ 12:11 pm

    If we got paid for correcting the grammar/spelling of trolls, it would be a never-ending job of immense monetary reward.

    Comment by Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:25 pm

  60. You can get paid for doing this?

    Sign me up. Peter’s complete inability to deal with compound words should keep me in gravy indefinitely!

    Comment by Icy Truth (aedb2f) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:28 pm

  61. #56 Subotai

    How is the Economy not going to be able to justify legalizing at least some of the illegal immigrants in this country?

    Temporary public assistance, if needed will assure that they keep their labor costs low and be able to purchase the items that keep our economy running.

    Of course legalizing these “illegals” does not give them the right to vote.

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:45 pm

  62. So ICY, Another Drew and Subotai, you mean to tell me that you are against citizenship for natural born people?

    I love how you guys scapegoat my grammar. (apparently it’s all you have)

    Also you seem to understand me perfectly. If my grammar is so bad, I could live just perfectly without your lame replies.

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:52 pm

  63. Comment by Oiram — 11/10/2008 @ 12:52 pm

    Excuse me, I believe I was commenting on the concept of the “grammar police”,
    and never mentioned immigration at all.

    Comment by Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:14 pm

  64. Sorry Another Drew.

    I mistakenly lumped your views in with the other two grammar police, ICY and Subotai.

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:22 pm

  65. Comment by Oiram — 11/10/2008 @ 1:22 pm

    Yes, you have a habit of making unfounded accusations. Appology accepted.

    Now, please explain to me how this applies to illegal immigrants, when it does not apply to diplomats within the United States:

    “…All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”

    Comment by Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:25 pm

  66. #65 Another, who mentioned anything about diplomats?

    #65 Another Drew writes:
    Yes, you have a habit of making unfounded accusations. Appology accepted.

    On #51 Another Drew writes:
    Translation of Oiram’s post: Who gives a fuck if they’re illegal?

    Another Drew…….. So do you.

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:42 pm

  67. How is the Economy not going to be able to justify legalizing at least some of the illegal immigrants in this country?

    What?

    Temporary public assistance, if needed will assure that they keep their labor costs low and be able to purchase the items that keep our economy running.

    You are telling me that we can “keep their labor costs low” if the taxpayers subsidize them. You don’t really understand this economics stuff, do you?

    And I simply LOVE your notion that we give them money, which they use to buy stuff, which keeps the economy running! I mean, if we give even more money, to even more people, the economy will really be booming, won’t it?

    I’m going to take a big leap in the dark here and guess that you did not major in economics or any other finincial area. And that you’ve forgotten what little you were exposed to in Ecnomics 101.

    Comment by Subotai (a878b1) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:58 pm

  68. 66. On #51 Another Drew writes:
    Translation of Oiram’s post: Who gives a fuck if they’re illegal?
    Another Drew…….. So do you.
    Comment by Oiram — 11/10/2008 @ 1:42 pm

    51. Translation of Oiram’s post: Who gives a fuck if they’re illegal?
    [BTW, a review of "there, they're & their" is warranted.]
    Comment by Icy Truth — 11/10/2008 @ 10:02 am

    It is time for you to apologize again.
    I did not post comment #51.

    Comment by Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:59 pm

  69. Temporary public assistance, if needed

    By definition they will be receiving permanent public assistance, like all the working poor in this country.

    Comment by Subotai (a878b1) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:00 pm

  70. #68 Your right Another, ICY said that.

    I get you two mixed up sometimes.

    Sorry again.

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:02 pm

  71. Yes, I can understand your confusion.
    Icy Truth is just so similar to Another Drew.

    That was two….

    Comment by Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:07 pm

  72. #67 Not sure if you do either Subotai.

    How much do we currently pay for fruit?

    And is this not part of our economy?

    I’m not advocating subsidizing them. But if they are here legally and they come under “public assistance” why shouldn’t they receive what we all have a right to?

    You know what never mind Subotai. That’s not what this post is about and I already know your feelings on public assistance. As you do mine.

    Go on correcting my grammar, because your not going to convince me and about 51% (And counting) of this country.

    Have a wonderful day.

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:08 pm

  73. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

    Comment by Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:11 pm

  74. #73 Exactly

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:12 pm

  75. Not sure if you do either Subotai.

    How much do we currently pay for fruit?

    And is this not part of our economy?

    I gather that you think you just made some sort of point. But your writing is so poor that I have no idea what it is. Please explain, using sentences which don’t have question marks at the end.

    To answer your question – we don’t know how much we pay for fruit. The cost in a store is not the true price, as the fruit farmers shift a lot of their employment costs onto the taxpayers. If they did not do that the store price would rise, very slightly. And the taxpayer cost would go down.

    I’m not advocating subsidizing them. But if they are here legally and they come under “public assistance” why shouldn’t they receive what we all have a right to?

    There are not here legally. And your earlier post did suggest subsidizng them, though presumably after some sort of amnesty.

    Comment by Subotai (a878b1) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:16 pm

  76. That’s not what this post is about

    So you don’t want to discuss the economics of illegal immigraton because of your devotion to discussing the voting issue? Or because you cannot defend it on economic grounds?

    We all know the answer to that.

    Have a wonderful day

    Nyah nyah nyah to you, also.

    Illiterate child.

    Comment by Subotai (a878b1) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:19 pm

  77. #75 Done with Subotai,

    There are not here legally……..”

    Get back to us when you could say “But your writing is so poor that I have no idea what it is.” without being hypocritical.

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:30 pm

  78. Get back to us when you could say “But your writing is so poor that I have no idea what it is.” without being hypocritical.

    What’s “hypocritical” about that? Do you even know what they word “hypocritcal” means, or is it just a general purpose insult for you, like “asshole” or “fascist”?

    Of course rather than explain, you’ll just say “that’s not what this post is about, nyah nyah”.

    Comment by Subotai (a878b1) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:42 pm

  79. I never said that I was against citizenship for a citizen.

    Comment by Icy Truth (aedb2f) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:55 pm

  80. This thread illustrates why there’s so much illegal immigration to begin with: instead of doing something, people just rant in echo chambers.

    Out of eighty comments, my first comment is the only one that offered a solution. Unless someone else can come up with a viable solution, let me suggest pushing that. Contact major bloggers and suggest they concentrate on pushing that plan rather than just throwing out red meat.

    Comment by 24AheadDotCom (078238) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:16 pm

  81. “This thread illustrates why there’s so much illegal immigration to begin with: instead of doing something, people just rant in echo chambers.

    Out of eighty comments, my first comment is the only one that offered a solution.”

    Give the man a medal.

    What time would you like your parade?

    Go fuck yourself 24AheadDotCom.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:18 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4344 secs.