Archive for the Immigration Category

The End of the GOP?

Posted in Immigration, Politics, Religion with tags , , , , on June 28, 2010 by raingeg

According to an article at last week by Tom Schaller, author of Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South, the Republican party is on its way out if it doesn’t make some serious changes.

The article titled “The Emerging Republican Minority” sounds a bit more like a Democratic wish list and than it does anything that will help Republicans in the future. For many on the left everything revolves around the leftist trinity of race, gender and class. So, naturally they are going to look at the Republican party through that prism and it just doesn’t work.


The Center for American Politics’ Ruy Teixeira, one of the top political demographers in the country, has a new paper out in which he examines the two major party coalitions, with a focus on the current and future prospects of the Republican Party. For the GOP, says Teixeira, things look grim, in large part because the country is becoming less white and more educated. He provides specific data showing how college educated voters are growing, and non-college educated shrinking, as shares of the electorate; likewise for the growing non-white v. shrinking white populations.

“The Democratic Party will become even more dominated by the emerging constituencies that gave Barack Obama his historic 2008 victory, while the Republican Party will be forced to move toward the center to compete for these constituencies. As a result, modern conservatism is likely to lose its dominant place in the GOP,” he writes, adding that “the Republican Party as currently constituted is in need of serious and substantial changes in approach.”

Basically, the Republican party is a bunch of white and uneducated people, and since whites are a dying breed then Democrats automatically have an edge. I don’t know what else to get out of this article than that. This furthers the idea that people on the left only look at the world through their leftist trinity.

Teixeira has some recommendations to the Republicans:

Move to the center on social issues.

The culture wars may have worked for a while, but shifting demographics make them a loser for the party today and going forward. A more moderate approach would help with Millennials, where the party must close a yawning gap, and with white college graduates, who still lean Republican but just barely. The party also needs to make a breakthrough with Hispanics, and that won’t happen unless it shifts its image toward social tolerance, especially on immigration.

The breakthrough with Hispanics is more likely to come from cultural issues because Hispanics are overwhelmingly religious Catholics. But its hard for Conservatives to make a breakthrough with American Hispanics with lefties calling them “bigots” “racists” and “xenophobes.” Coupled with Democrats pretty much bribing Hispanic immigrants by selling them the lie that the American dream is given not earned. Its like their hanging a carrot in front of their faces, letting them get a bite that barley suffices and then pulling the carrot away after an election and giving the individual a bite again only after he once again votes for the guy or gal holding the stick.

Pay attention to whites with some college education and to young white working-class voters in general.

The GOP’s hold on the white working class is not secure, and if that slips, the party doesn’t have much to build on to form a successful new coalition. That probably also means offering these voters something more than culture war nostrums and antitax jeremiads.

Another demographic target should be white college graduates, especially those with a four-year degree only.

The party has to stop the bleeding in America’s large metropolitan areas, especially in dynamic, growing suburbs. Keeping and extending GOP support among this demographic is key to taking back the suburbs. White college graduates increasingly see the party as too extreme and out of touch.

The Republican party is too extreme and out of touch? Current polling would greatly go against this finding (here and here). Now I realize that Teixeira is focusing more on the future of the GOP, but I have to point out again that this is all predicated on the idea that non-white highly educated people are all going to swing in favor of the Democrats, and there’s no guarantee that this will happen. Current data would seem to put that point into question too! The Republican party is a party that is becoming more and more “diverse” (as the lefties like to call it). Now, do I really care about what race an individual is? No, not nearly as much as the left cares about the race of their candidates and those who represent their party. I care far more about what they believe and how they intend to do their job as a servant to the people.

But, for the record, lets look at how “diverse” the Republican party is today! Niki Hailey is a Republican and an Indian woman running for Governor in South Carolina. Marco Rubio is a Republican from Florida who’s parents who came to America from Cuba. Tim Scott is a Republican and a black South Carolinian Congressional candidate. Don’t forget about Bobby Jindal who is also Indian and is the Governor of the state of Louisiana. And since gender matters so much these days think of the women that were just elected in primary races in California, Carly Fiorina who is running for the Senate and Meg Whitman who is running for Governor.

In the long run the GOP has to have serious solutions of its own that go beyond cutting taxes. These solutions should use government to address problems but in ways that reflect conservative values and principles. Antigovernment populism is something the party is clearly comfortable with— witness its evolving line of attack on the Obama administration. But it’s likely not enough to just denounce the other side and what they have done or propose to do in populist terms.

I agree with Teixeira on this one, Republicans need to address problems and in ways that “reflect conservative values and principles.” But the irony of his statement is that all of the suggestions he lays out prior to this are not conservative and do not reflect conservative values. That’s because his suggestions are riddled with leftist cliches and pejoratives. “Anti-tax,” “social tolerance” and “anti-government” are all ways the left sees the right and not the way the right would prefer to be represented.

Schaller writes:

What’s interesting to me about most of Teixeira’s suggested changes is that the GOP is either not doing them, or doing something close to the opposite. If anything, the opposite is happening. Indeed, the single biggest storyline of the past year for conservatives and the Republican Party is the rise of the tea party protest movement.

On immigration, if anything the GOP has taken a turn toward anti-amnesty, fence-building xenophobia. The Republicans may have eased off the gas pedal somewhat on tax-cutting, but the conversational shift to deficit reduction and fears of growing government size still carries strong and familiar anti-government overtones.

This seems to be a bit perplexing to Schaller. They are not pushing left-wing positions and they are winning! Could it be that what the left says about Conservatism and Republicans and what they really are is not accurate? Could it be that the politics of the country is not quite as easy to sum up as those on the left think it is? And could it be that college educated non-whites will vote for Conservative candidates instead of leftist Democrats?

HT:  Memeorandum


The Politics of the Border

Posted in Immigration, Politics with tags , , on June 23, 2010 by raingeg

I sure hope this doesn’t turn into one of those blogs that only talks about border issues. Its a problem, I know that, but its not the only problem. Politically speaking, its a problem for President Obama’s administration and the Democratic party in Arizona.

There is a part of me that wants to say that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer calculated this out and understood the political ramifications of the passage of SB 1070, some have speculated that that might be the case. Then there’s another part of me that has pretty much warmed up to the idea that it might have just been what it looks like, a state that could no longer sit on its hands and wait for federal action, with a hint of an attitude that says help us out or we’ll do it ourselves.

I hope that doesn’t give you the impression that I think the passage of SB 1070 will magically fix the border problem, it won’t. Its obviously going to take more than just SB 1070, its going to take real action from the federal government, but I’ve pointed out before what that action should look like. And it can’t be what President Obama calls “comprehensive” immigration reform.

But back to my original point. I’d like to bring your attention to two articles, one by Sean Miller at The Hill and another by Byron York in the Washington Examiner.

The first one brings to light to political ramifications for Arizona Democrats because of the lawsuit proposed by the Obama administration.

The Hill:

Arizona Democrats facing tough reelection races are distancing themselves from the Obama administration as it prepares to file a lawsuit against the state over its controversial immigration law.

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) on Monday sent a sharply worded letter to President Barack Obama urging him not to sue.

“I believe your administration’s time, efforts and resources would be much better spent securing the border and fixing our broken immigration system,” the two-term congressman wrote in the letter.

“Arizonans are tired of the grandstanding, and tired of waiting for help from Washington. … [A] lawsuit won’t solve the problem. It won’t secure the border, and it won’t fix our broken immigration system.”

“Congresswoman Giffords wants more federal agents on the Arizona border, not federal lawyers in court arguing with state lawyers about a law that will do nothing to increase public safety in the communities she represents,” C.J. Karamargin, a spokesman for the congresswoman, told The Hill.

Kirkpatrick likewise said the administration should focus on border security.

“I am calling on the president and the attorney general to abandon preparations for a lawsuit against Arizona, and to recommit to finding a national solution to fixing this national problem,” the freshman lawmaker said in a statement released Monday. “The administration should focus on working with Arizona to put together a long-term strategy to secure our borders and reform our immigration policy.

… The time for talk is over, and the time for action is here.”

The three Democrats have also directed their energy to lifting the Arizona boycotts that various groups and local governments around the country have started.

So right now you are seeing Democrats at the state level pitted up against Democrats in the White House. As the article points out, “Another way the suit could be problematic for Arizona Democrats: It could make it more complicated for them to appear with Obama at a fundraiser or campaign with him in-state.”

I need to hurry, since I’m running out of time and I need to leave for work.

Now on to Byron York from the Washington Examiner. Last weekend Sen. Jon Kyl basically told us that President Obama, one-on-one meeting with Kyl, in a roundabout way told him he’s not going to act on the border. He doesn’t want to do anything until comprehensive immigration reform is on the table. Later on a spokesman for the White House came out and said Kyl was lying.

Byron York:

Now, in an interview with KVOI radio in Arizona, Kyl says his account of the Oval Office conversation is accurate.

“What I said occurred did occur,” Kyl said.

“One way you can verify the validity of what I said is that that’s exactly their position,” Kyl continued.

“Some spokesman down at the White House said no, that isn’t what happened at all, and then proceeded to say we need comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border.

That is their position, and all I was doing was explaining why, from a conversation with the president, why it appears that that’s their position.”

After Kyl’s radio interview, a Kyl spokesman sent a note emphasizing the senator’s point. “There were two people in that meeting and [spokesman] Dan Pfeiffer was not one of them,” spokesman Andrew Wilder said.

“The White House spokesman’s pushback that you must have comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border only confirms Kyl’s account.”

So this makes for interesting politics. You have Arizona Democrats distancing themselves from the White House and sounding almost like Republicans when it comes to action on the border. And you have the White House ready to sue Arizona and hurt the Democrats running for reelection in the state. Not to mention that if the White House continues on their current path it further validates Kyl’s claim that the President is not after anything but “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Obama to Kyl: Won’t secure the border

Posted in Immigration, Politics with tags , , , , , on June 20, 2010 by raingeg

Arizona Senator Jon Kyl reveals President Obamas border plan at Tempe town hall.

Red State:

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”

Sen. Kyl also said he reminded President Obama that the President and the Congress have an obligation, a duty, to secure the border.

And here’s the video from the town hall meeting.

HT: Red State and Memeorandum

Rep. Ted Poe of Texas Questions Holder on Law

Posted in Immigration, Politics with tags , , , on May 14, 2010 by raingeg

I did not know that this video existed, thanks to a Facebook friend I now do. If you’d like to read more about my opinion on Holder not reading the law click here.

Eric Holder Hasn’t Read SB 1070

Posted in Immigration, Politics with tags , , , , , on May 13, 2010 by raingeg

Wow! What a shock, Attorney General Eric Holder hasn’t read Arizona’s SB 1070. Actually, this is not a shock at all. They don’t even read 2,000 page legislation that will take over a large portion of the economy and effect every citizen of the country, so why should they read a small bill out of Arizona?’

The Washington Times:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona’s new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn’t yet read the law and is going by what he’s read in newspapers or seen on television.

He’s going by what the newspapers and television say? The bill is not that long, its 18 pages, about one one hundredth the size of the health insurance bill. In other words, you don’t need two days and two lawyers to see what it all means, as John Conyers famously stated.

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program that the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law’s passage “unfortunate,” and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn’t yet read the legislation.

“It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven’t even read the law,” the Texas Republican told the attorney general.

The Arizona law’s backers argue that it doesn’t go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.

But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.

Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.

This is the most important part of this post, so make sure you don’t miss it. The media is to blame for the problem that we have here. The critics backers that they mention in the article are right. When it comes to what the law really says and what the critics of the law say it says, the media does a bad job of presenting the facts in a way that rebuts what the critics are saying, or just straightens out what they are saying.

For example: “But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.”

Do you not understand, Washington Times, that police cannot, I repeat cannot, stop someone because they suspect that they are in the country illegally? Please help me understand why the following sentence wasn’t a direct quote from the bill that shows that police are required to have what is called a “lawful” encounter with the police, reference Article 8, Section B in the first sentence of SB 1070. The police can only ask the immigration status of a person that has already broken the law, not just anybody walking down the street. And if anyone would just take the time to do some investigative reporting and read HB 2162 they would find out that there is a whole list of types of identification that will suffice in the event that a person gets pulled over, one of which is a regular old Arizona drivers license.

The media is in the back pocket of the left and they are not going to give you a fair summary, or even a legitimate and accurate report of what the law really says. They are all pandering to the left on this one because they are all afraid of offending someone, even at the expense of looking stupid, they will do anything to be politically correct. In order to be politically correct it almost always means that one has to be intellectually dishonest and factually wrong when presenting the “facts.”

Hat tip: Memeorandum

Another Look at Arizona’s SB 1070

Posted in Immigration, Politics with tags , , on May 10, 2010 by raingeg

I’d like to address SB 1070 once again. Its getting to be a bit disappointing how much the left has distorted this piece of legislation. You wouldn’t believe how many times I’ve heard people say that a cop can now pull someone over because they look a certain way, or they believe they are in the country illegally. That is simply not true. This is leftist drivel, it is a lie.

I’ve quoted it before, and I will quote it again. (I underlined for emphasis)



There has to be what is called “lawful contact” and racial profiling is not lawful contact. You cannot pull someone over because they are Mexican or Latino, whatever term you wish to use. That is simply a lie. If you are speeding down the road and you get pulled over, the cop then has the ability to ask for your immigration status if there is a reason to ask. If you have a taillight out and a cop pulls you over, the cop can then ask for your immigration status if there is a reason to ask. In the original version of 1070 race could be a factor, but only after that “lawful contact” was made, it could not be the sole factor. Again, lawful contact comes after someone has committed a crime. And now with the addition of HB 2162 that isn’t even allowed. But you never hear anything about HB 2162 out of the media.

Please understand that this law does not go any farther than the federal law. This law is the law that is supposed to be enforced by the federal government, but sadly, is not. The outright lie that a cop can pull you over because you look like an illegal immigrant needs to stop. The other argument that this is somehow like Nazi Germany asking for “papers” needs to end. As outlined in HB 2162, a drivers license is a legitimate form identification.

Here’s a question that I haven’t heard. SB 1070 enforces federal law at the state level. Provided my previous statement is true, there are officers that the federal government gives the proper authority to to enforce our immigration laws. Why, if Arizona is taking advantage of the same law at the state level, has the federal law not been deemed racist?

Here’s what 8 United States Code Section 1373(c) says:

(a) In general
      Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local
    law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may
    not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or
    official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or
    immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
    (b) Additional authority of government entities
      Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local
    law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a
    Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the
    following with respect to information regarding the immigration
    status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
        (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving
      such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization
        (2) Maintaining such information.
        (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State,
      or local government entity.
    (c) Obligation to respond to inquiries
      The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an
    inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to
    verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any
    individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose
    authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or
    status information.

If Arizona’s new immigration bill is so racist, why is 8 United States Code Section 1373 not just as racist as SB 1070? I just don’t understand it.

The truth of the matter is that the federal government does not want to enforce our immigration laws. The truth is that “comprehensive,” the word so often used by our federal government with regard to just about any issue whether it be health care or illegal immigration, really means “all.” As Victor Davis Hanson says “’Comprehensive’ is a euphemism for amnesty.” He is exactly right.

I don’t favor amnesty, but I do favor legal immigration. I support finding the criminals (drug traffickers, human smugglers, gang members or anyone with an extensive crime record) within the population of the current illegal immigrants and deporting them. I support building a wall that separates Mexico from the United States, that stops the flow of illegal immigrants and keeps people out. I support making it easier to come into this country to find work and to raise a family legally. I support the death of stupid laws that do not make the former possible. I support getting people that have already waited in line into the country legally. Because I am a pragmatist and I recognize that deporting nearly 10 million people is virtually impossible, I support finding a way to help those who have already illegally arrived in this country. We need a system that forces them to pay for their crime of illegal entry, and allows them to stay in the country if they are willing to pay for their crime. I also support automatic citizenship for anyone that is willing to fight and die for our country.

That is not radical, racist or xenophobic. I want our country to continue to be a country of immigrants, but I want them to come here legally. I also want them to become Americans, not Mexican Americans or Chinese Americans. I want them to be one of us. I want to welcome them to this country, as my relatives were welcomed in 1910 and show them what freedom and liberty is in this great Republic.

So-called “racist” Senate Bill 1070 Signed Into Law

Posted in Humanity, Immigration, Politics on April 24, 2010 by raingeg

Immigration is back in the news, and it feels like deja vu. When I first started working at the radio station in 2005 one of the biggest issues in talk radio, and in particular the show that I was working on, was illegal immigration and border security. Every weekend something new was happening on the border. It didn’t help that there was an election coming in 2006 and candidates were using the medium as a forum. But as of late the issue has gone under the radar a bit in the media. From 2006-08 we were dealing with what seemed like one of the longest election process ever, Lou Dobbs Tonight was canceled and for the last year health care has been in the headlines nearly every day.

About a month ago the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps disbanded after there was fear that a call to arms would lead to violence. Not too long after they disbanded rancher Robert Krentz was shot to death on his ranch by an illegal alien. Frankly, I don’t think one has anything to do with the other, but the timing of the event and the violence associated with it is a bit ironic.

I had a feeling that Arizona would be interesting to watch after the 2008 election, and I’ve been proven right. In 2008 Arizona was unique in that it moved to the right in the both houses and Janet Napolitano left for Washington, leaving the job of Governor to Republican Jan Brewer. Remember that this is coinciding with the election of one of the most left wing presidents in the history of our country. Needless to say, the report for Arizona is pretty good, aside from the proposed temporary tax increase. Governor Brewer recently signed into law the Constitutional Carry bill that allows citizens to carry weapons concealed without a CCW permit and yesterday she signed SB-1070.

SB-1070 is an immigration bill that now makes it a crime under state law to be in this country illegally. Police officers will now be able to ask for proof of citizenship if they have reasonable suspicion during what Republican State Sen. Frank Antenori calls “a lawful encounter.” It also prevents cities from becoming sanctuary cities. A sanctuary city is a city that does not enforce or has lax enforcement of immigration laws, therefore, becoming a sanctuary to the illegal alien. It will also have an effect on day labor, “it is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in Arizona.”

The left is angry over SB-1070, they say it allows for racial profiling and discrimination by police officers, and Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva had an inane call to action prior to passage that would have actually hurt the very people that he was claiming to represent.

Sen. Frank Antenori defends the bill on MSNBC Wednesday night.

Rep. Raul Grajalva proposes boycott on Keith Olbermanns “Countdown.”

So what does the bill really say about the issue that Raul and Frank discussed? (I underlined for emphasis)

From SB-1070s:



Sen. Antenori is right when he says that the law enforcement officer must have made lawful contact with the suspect before the officer can ask for immigration status. I’ve never understood why a law of this nature doesn’t already exist. Illegal immigration is a gigantic problem in America, and especially in Arizona. I have no problem with a law enforcement officer enforcing the law.

The left will say, and to a degree I will agree with them, that immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government. But the federal government has failed to do its job, and I have no problem with states introducing laws that aide the federal government. The federal government is simply not as actively involved with the community as our law enforcement officers are, and this does not take away the power of the federal government to enforce immigration laws.

Opponents of this bill would have you believe that police officers will be on the look out for Hispanic people, asking every one they see for their immigration status. But it should be noted that race cannot be the sole reason that an officer questions a persons citizenship. If a person is pulled over and they don’t have a drivers license the authorities now have a reason to check on their citizenship, this bill gives them the ability to check, and that’s it. The bill “Requires the act to be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of U.S. Citizens.”

And finally, let me address Raul Grijalva’s boycott.

From KOLD News 13 Tucson:

The congressman announced yesterday in a news release that national organizations of all kinds should reject Arizona as a convention destination. He said on the cable network MSNBC that economic sanctions are the only “consequences” that can be imposed on Arizona for the passage of SB 1070, the immigration enforcement bill that is drawing national applause and criticism. “I’m really surprised that Congressman Grijalva would actually say that,” Mariachi Conference President Tim Escobedo said. While he did not expect the statement from Grijalva, Escobedo believes if SB 1070 becomes law, it could impact the conference. “It potentially could affect us, I think so, yes,” he said.

Rep. Raul Grijalva issued the following statment:

“The governor and legislature are blind to what this bill will really do to citizens, law enforcement and the state economy. Tourists will not come to a state with discriminatory policies on the books. Businesses will not move here. Hispanic workers and taxpayers will leave. If state lawmakers don’t realize or don’t care how detrimental this will be, we need to make them understand somehow. Conventions are a large source of visitors and revenue, and targeting them is the most effective way to make this point before it’s too late. Just as professional athletes refused to recognize Arizona until it recognized Martin Luther King Jr., we are calling on organizations not to schedule conventions and conferences in Arizona until it recognizes civil rights and the meaning of due process. We don’t want to sustain this effort any longer than necessary. It’s about sending a message.”

Rep. Grijalva actually believes that tourists and businesses will look at SB-1070 and not want to visit Arizona? So his answer to this is to hurt the tourism industry! We cannot overlook the fact that the tourism industry employs the very people that Rep. Grijalva claims to have in his best interest. That is not racist or stereotyping, its just the truth. “Its about sending a message,” the message that you people who are currently employed by the the tourism industry are expendable, for what I perceive to be the betterment of the state.

I have always been in favor of a policy that quickly and efficiently gets good hard working people into the country legally, while doing whatever necessary to keep bad people from entering illegally. What is called by some the high gate and wide fence policy the high fence and wide gate policy. I am not Bill The Butcher, in other words, I’m not a nativist. If not for immigration to this country I would not be here. The left constantly wants to make this about race, but everything on the left is about either race, gender or class. This is nothing new, and it shouldn’t surprise any of us when Raul Grijalva threatens the state with “economic sanctions” over a bill like this. The left needs racism and they need the victim mentality, because they need votes, and by constantly harping on both of the former issues they are sure get them.