I find that ridiculous. Two Republican Presidents made strenuous efforts (one successful) at mass amnesty. I don’t remember Reagan having much to say about Hispanics at all (I’d consider him more vulnerable, though ultimately I don’t agree, to charges of black-baiting with the welfare and drugs/crime antagonism). The RNC has never until recently (because it couldn’t, given that the top guy for eight years was advocating amnesty) taken any kind of broad stand against even illegal immigration, let alone the let’s-have-a-moratorium-on-all-immigration position that hardcore (not racist) immigration control groups have. And you haven’t begun to account for the mass pandering, led by the GOP, to Florida Cubans (who I think are Latinos?). That has changed foreign policy, trade policy on a significant scale. Where’s the race-baiting there?
The Arizona law is not about Republicans trying to squelch hispanic voter growth. :rolleyes:
It’s about enforcing the already existing Federal laws.
Now conversely, the faux outrage by the current administration against the Arizona law is about courting to the hispanic vote.
I don’t know if that is the purpose - I suspect the real cause is nastier than that. But if some guy who wants to leave California because our taxes are too low and our schools suck has a choice of New Mexico or Arizona, which do you think he’ll choose? Maybe he doesn’t want to carry around his passport in case of getting hassled every time he forgets to use his turn signal.
The Cuban situation in Florida is exceptional. I know you have enough historical knowledge to realize that; I assume you’re being disingenuous. I’ll also note that current Cuban refugees are, on many occasions, returned to Cuba.
The Arizona law is about Jan Brewer having to feed the voters of Arizona a shit sandwich of a sales tax increase in an election year.
I have not heard they are doing much in Arizona with the new law. If they start hitting the hispanics at election time, you will know why they pushed its passage.
What makes you think it’s faux?
That shouldn’t stop them doing the right thing and reducing low skill immigration which is killing places like California (National Review Online: Stop Illegals, Save CA : NPR).
Steve Sailer has noted that the minority outreach adopted by Rove & Bush didn’t work & marginally increasing the % vote of the large white majority would be more effective:
Are those statistics for ALL Hispanics or for Hispanics LIKELY TO VOTE.
Poor people and people with less education and income also aren’t likely to vote.
I a group of people don’t vote why bother.
This is why Jews have been historically a very important group. Not because of their numbers, but because they vote, and they vote heavily.
If you have 5 million Hispanics and 3% vote that’s 150,000 votes. If you have 250,000 Jews and 90% of them vote, that is 225,000 votes
So it’s not only numbers but how many people will actually exercise that right
Keep your “disingenuous” to yourself if you don’t mind.
“Exceptional?” Let’s see . . . the Cold War was “exceptional” (it only happened once). The emergence of fascist totalitarian states, and the U.S. fight against them, was a historical anomaly as well (it only happened once). Nonetheless, these “exceptions” are ones that cannot simply be evaded by someone who made, say, a sweeping statement that the respective Administrations and political parties who led the opposition to Soviet communism or Nazi tyranny were pro-communist or pro-fascist. Ever hear of an “exception” swallowing the rule? Certainly in economic terms, in foreign policy terms, in freedom-of-movement terms (Americans are the only people on Earth (oh Hell who knows about Burmese, but just about the only) who aren’t free to visit Cuba), the impact of the Republican-led Cuban-pandering approaches that sort of “exception.”
And . . . your “exceptional” fails to address the point I made about GHWB and GWB pushing (and in the case of the former, succeeding) for sweeping amnesty (call it path-to-citizenship, whatever) policies that would benefit, overwhelmingly, Mexicans and Central Americans who had illegally immigrated to the U.S.
The post to which I was responding posited that the GOP had been defined for “20 years” by “race baiting” against Latinos. The “exceptions” I point out to this supposed trend, if you must call them “exceptions,” are pretty huge, huge enough to negate the premise entirely.
I also, while I’m saying this, take issue with the aspect of “race-baiting” which implies that there is something pretextual, illegitimate, or irrationally-antagonistic about concern with illegal immigration. Conservative opposition lagged the objective increase in the amount of illegal immigration and associated crime (MS-13, border violence spillover, etc.) by a few years, and GOP official policy has most certainly lagged grassroots concerns by a few more years, but both are direct outgrowths of a real development sparked not by racial animus but by the free-will choice of increasing numbers of non-citizens to circumvent the U.S. border control laws.
Umm no. Per your cites:
2010: 53-31 = 32 point gap towards Dems
2008: 65-26 = 39 point gap towards Dems.
They are trending away from Dems, not towards. Indeed, they are trending away from Dems more than they are trending away from Reps. In fact, if we extrapolate from the numbers you cited, in 2018, they’ll be favoring Reps, 6-5. 
Well, more significant is the level of donations they make and media influence (see link below regarding concerns about Obama offending donors re Israel). In that respect support of immigration by jewish groups is very important & carries more weight than just voting numbers (http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/04/26/2394520/arizona-brings-renewed-attention-to-immigration-reform).
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/89941-jewish-donors-may-be-chilled-by-israel-policy
You can’t pull numbers out of context like that — 2008 was the Democrats’ big victory year, and they’re in a slump right now. The trend you’ve shown has nothing to do with Hispanics and everything to do with slipping Democratic popularity. IOW, how much has the point gap changed among the entire voting population? My guess is, as much or more than among the Hispanics only.
:rolleyes: Haven’t you learned by now that VDARE is not a cite? You might as well link to Stormfront.
Sailer cited Census Bureau and other government data. Unless you can show that he falsified it – Godwin jackassery is in the house.
I’m not the one pulling the numbers. The OP is. I simply showed that the numbers don’t support the trend that the OP states they do.
If you think the trend is still going Dem despite the numbers actually cited, then feel free to cite any studies or surveys that support that trend. Otherwise, all you have is wishful thinking that your opinion has more weight than facts.
That was my first post of the thread — don’t bother with claims about what I’m trying to do. Anyway, the article didn’t take the data very far —it only used it to show that Hispanics substantially prefer Democrats*. I would agree that it doesn’t support the notion that Hispanics like Democrats more than they used to —but then, for the article’s purposes, they don’t need to do that. Like I said, you really can’t give a trend-line for how much they prefer Democrats without considering the national trends. You would need to compare Hispanic polling over time to overall polling over time. IOW, no, you are lacking in sufficient facts to draw your conclusions.
That said, it would be interesting to compare trends in Hispanic voting to those of other groups. Anybody know where such info is available?
*Actually, this isn’t fair: they do the same thing you do, just using different plotting points, and it’s no more valid when they do it:
ETA: it would be the same objection: Obama was drastically more popular than Kerry with everyone, so of course minorities voted for him over the Republican candidate more than four years previously.
:rolleyes: You clearly don’t understand the law. Under the Arizona law, the proffer of a valid state issued driver’s license will satisfy the requirements.
Because if it was genuine outrage, then the adminstration would be working to dismantle the current Federal laws, which the Arizona law mirrors. They are not.
Oh, I understand it very well. When I was in college I had long hair and I drove a big car, and I got stopped by the Boston cops all the time. I never got a ticket or even a warning. It is a tremendous hassle. I was able to cut my hair. Latinos can’t stop looking Latino. And if a police department thinks it has better things to do than hassle people very likely legal they can get sued by bigoted assholes.
I don’t even know what that means. Are you under the impression that civilians can sue PDs for ineffective enforcement of the law?
Because . . . no, they can’t.