January 7, 2004
EVERYBODY WINS...EXCEPT THE DEMOCRATS:
Immigration--What's Rove's idea? (Steve Sailer, 1/07/04, UPI)
President George W. Bush's new immigration initiative is surprisingly more liberal than the trial balloon that he floated in July 2001 suggesting amnesty for some Mexican illegal aliens and that ran into heavy weather among Republican congressmen even before 9/11.According to senior administration officials, the new plan includes a de facto amnesty for undocumented workers and their dependents; a new temporary worker program to bring in more immigrants; and an expansion in the number of green cards to put more immigrants on the road to permanent residency, citizenship and voting.
It raises questions about what political benefits the Republican president's senior adviser Karl Rove hopes to gain by proposing such an expansive plan at a time of relatively high unemployment (5.9 percent in November).
The conventional answer is: "To increased the GOP's share of the crucial Hispanic population of swing voters." The influential Washington Post, for example, has repeatedly cited a 2001 quote from Bush pollster Matthew Dowd claiming, "As a realistic goal, we have to get somewhere between ... 38 (percent) to 40 percent of the Hispanic vote" in 2004, compared to the estimated 35 percent Bush earned in 2000.
Although Latinos are often described as "swing voters," their actual performance has been quite stable relative to non-Hispanic whites. In House elections since 1980, the GOP has always performed between 19 and 28 percentage points worse among Hispanics than among whites.
Unlike African-Americans, the GOP's popularity among Hispanics generally rises and falls in the same cycles found among whites.
We too believe that everything is political, but the primary reason for the liberality of the bill is more likely that business wants the workers than that Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush need the voters. That said though, by Mr. Sailer's own math it looks like they'll get them. With the President headed for a white vote of 60% or higher in 2004, he'll easily get that 40% of the Hispanic vote. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 7, 2004 8:15 PM
From the purely, big picture (because at the district, state level is too volatile) political perspective this is not an unmitigated win for Reps, loss for Dems. In the short-term it is indeed (and some Reps may cynically say that is all W may care about) because the math is obvious. Assume that 35% was the Latino Rep equilibrium; assume the stock of Latino votes is X mm; assume a proposal like this increases the Rep equilibium to, say 40% because it shows Reps care; then the addition of A% (of X mm) new Latino voting stock at at spread of, still, 60% to 40% against Reps would not begin to "lose votes" for Reps until the new stock is 50% of the original one. If the plan is graduallly introduced or voting is granted only after some time, it would take a while for it to be risky. (Of course, if the Rep equilibrium switched to 45% to 55% it would take a doubling for it to lose.)
Of course, can you get the swing from 35% to 40% without adding new Dems? Some will want to know. And, of course, if this "generosity" gets repaid by no increase in the spread, you are in the whole from day one.
Posted by: MG at January 7, 2004 9:33 PMI’d love opinions of whether I have this wrong, but Congress, of course, have to be the ones to make this law, no?
Now then, suppose Bush proposes this generous idea, makes Hispanics in general happy. Now Congress (GOP certainly) says, “OK, BUT…. We are not going to do this without MAJOR crackdowns on our borders”, which the Right and others have been properly screaming about for ages.
Do this, and Bush is the good guy, helping Hispanics IN the country, Congress is the bad guy, cracking down on illegal immigration overall, which in general only hurts wannabes outisde who don’t vote. Smiles all around.
For the record, I have no problem with a widespread and generous amnesty IF it is accompanied by serious, no BS border control. So maybe it’s wishful thinking. But if it does play out that way, it might be the plan from the get-go, and yet another savvy play by the continuously misunderestimated White House.
Wasn't a serious, no-BS border control policy suppose to accompany the other illegal amnesty under Reagan? Chances are under Bush we'll get exactly the same thing: lots of talk on border crackdowns, but no action. I don't think this is any savvy play, but another capitulation by the elites against the interests and desires of the common American.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at January 8, 2004 10:46 AMBut note, Chris, that I am not talking about "under Bush" per se, but the Congress. Again, THEY have to be the ones to pass this.
One way or another, this is an entry for Congressmen to at least make proposals with the cover they might need that they didn't have before.
Remains to be seen, of course, but I'd say IF it does play out that way, it was supposed to from the get-go.
We shall see.
Posted by: Andrew X at January 8, 2004 11:17 AMNo American would tolerate truly secure borders.
Posted by: oj at January 8, 2004 11:53 AMThere is no such thing as an "American".
Posted by: M. at January 8, 2004 1:10 PMTo be an American is to be something specific,defined by 400 hundred yrs of history and culture.When you define an american as anything,or everything else,then to be an anerican becomes a whisp of a smoke or a rainbow.
Today there is no such creature as an American ,it's become a myth.
One may become a legal resident,but that does not make an american.
One may casually partake of some aspects of that culture,but that doesn't make an american.
One may particpate in democracy,but that doesn't make an america.
One may own a business,but that doesn't make an american.
Americans were made once,but we don't make them anymore.
Posted by: M. at January 8, 2004 3:23 PMAh yes, and chocolate bunnies roamed mountains of rock candy...
Posted by: oj at January 8, 2004 3:50 PMHaving set me straight with that brilliant intellectual analysis and parade of facts,I'll retire from this thread.
Posted by: M. at January 8, 2004 4:07 PMWe don't truckle in facts here.
Posted by: oj at January 8, 2004 4:22 PMSome selective editing of my article, Orrin! The good stuff is up ahead.
If Bush gets 60% of the white vote, he wins, absolutely without a doubt. The Hispanic vote is pocket change -- there are about 13 non-Hispanic white voters for every Hispanic voter. Thus, if this move costs him just 1% of the white vote, he has to pick up an additional 13% of the Hispanic vote to break even.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at January 8, 2004 7:17 PMHeck, Mr. Sailer, I can't just reprint the whole thing.
He won't lose any votes--what are they going to do, vote Howard Dean for closed borders?
Posted by: oj at January 8, 2004 7:33 PM