It matters because if republicans think they can add a 9% greater share of the Hispanic vote by pandering to illegal aliens, they may continue to do so. If they got nothing for their pandering, they will cease doing so which would make a lot of Republicans very happy...

John,

Im against illegal immigration as much as the next guy but Republicans, and Democrats for that matter, will continue to pander hispanic voters regardless of the slight difference in numbers. 33% or 38% or 44%. It doesnt really matter. Whatever candidate is seeking office will undoubtedly court the hispanic vote by making the same promises theyve been making for years now. Policy hasnt changed all that much in that time and neither has number of illegals entering the country.

So, like I said, whats the big deal? There's nothinmg new here.

The only way to know for SURE is to do away with secret-ballots. Because some people just don't want to tell who they voted for, kinda like they won't tell you how old they are or how much money they make. Its not a crime to keep your vote private, and in many cases its the prudent thing to do.

What an ignorant statement! Of course we do not hate immigrants. We love a great LEGAL immigrant story. (reference Carlos Gutierrez and Miguel Estrada, come quickly to mind and many others that I personally know that would never make the news) We are picking slowly but surely at Republican Elites, who are catering to ILLEGALS. If you are for open borders then say so and back it up with reasons. Just calling names or implying someone is racist, is vile, evil and beneath contempt. I just started reading your blog and was greatly offended by your statement to Michelle Malkin. If you read her blog at all you would know she is a 1st generation immigrant!

With all due respect, Linda, I was commenting on Ms. Malkin's penchant for continuing to post on a story which is a non-story with such zeal.

Why does a 5% difference in hispanic voting polls have to garner such critical attention? Almost every pollster has stated that Bush's hispanic support increased, whereas the support for Kerry decreased. So what's the big problem with the specific numbers?

Why is it such a problem that hispanic voters - voters, not illegal aliens - supported Bush in greater numbers?

Val, I'm afraid you have in Linda what many of us in SoCal are feeling right now. The feeling she expresses, the frustration with Republican business elites who profit from illegal immigration at the expense of our economy and our national sovereignty, is a feeling I share. I also lament the loss of a cohesive regional culture in Southern California due to unrestrained immigration which results in a lack of any reason to assimilate.

This is the theory. The Republicans (David Drier as an example) cater to business interests who want to low ball wages. This pushes working class Americans (native, naturalized or legal resident) out of the job market or forces them to accept Third World wages and standards of living. This will only get worse if illegal immigrants are granted drivers’ licenses. Imagine all the jobs that require driving. They will all suffer from wage deflation similar to what has happened in the construction industry.

The fear we have is that by catering to illegal immigrant demands (and the demands of one Mr. Vincente Fox) the Republican leadership will be able to create the impression among Hispanic people that the Republicans are for “their people.” A few percentage points in elections as close as we have seen can make all the difference. If the Republican elites are able to accomplish this they will have killed two birds with one stone. The business interests are satisfied that they can pay lower wages and benefits and the Republican party can become entrenched in power and answer to no one.

I think Ms. Malkin is making an excellent point. This doesn’t work. The pandering has not accomplished the shift in votes. Sadly, it has resulted in unrestrained illegal immigration despite Bush’s protestations to the contrary. The business interests don’t care about long tern consequences., This is just the plan for now. They’d sell out the whole country if it meant they could turn a bigger profit. The businesses that do this have about as much allegiance to America and American values as the illegal immigrants that flood our cities and build little Mexicos with its disorder, crime and political corruption. There is a groundswell of resentment brewing in places like SoCal the likes of which will surpass the energy that resulted in the overwhelming approval of Prop 187 which was unsurprisingly thrown out by our liberal courts.

Patrick,

First, there is no mention of "republican elites" in Malkins post. She specifically and only mentions President Bush.

You know I am completely against any perks for illegal immigrants. Perhaps, what bothers me, as an hispanic of cuban descent, is that Malkin automatically assumes that ALL hispanics are for open borders and lumps us all in with the one category.

If the problem she is addressing is that of california specifically, then perhaps she should just call a spade a spade. Vincente Fox isnt sending Cubans or Dominicans across the border, he's sending mexicans.

Patrick you are so right. I am so sick of being called racist by those who do not see a difference between legal and illegal immigration. That atitude pushed my hot buttons and I sometimes have trouble stating what I am thinking. This problem has been discussed so often here in Southern California, that we forget those who have not heard all these things before. The thing is, Hillary is positioning herself to the right of the Republican Elites (on border control)and just might sway enough of us who disagree with the RE. Border control is a very big deal here in Southern California. I think Republicans could have done much better in California if they had taken this issue by the horns. If the (phony) Guest worker program was explained and structured properly we would go for it.
1. CLOSE LEAKING BORDERS North and South must be done immediately and forcefully.
2. Register ALL illegals, give them a short time to find a job or deport IMMEDIATELY unless they are dependant of a Guest Worker and are not on welfare, food stamps or medicaid.
3. Enforce STRONG sanctions against violators (Employers and Employees) ie: large fines, no chance of ever getting in Guest worker program if you violate.
4. Anyone in USA illegaly MAY NOT apply for citizenship, EVER.
That is just a beginning but at least it is a start to somehow get control.

I heard about this "guest worker program" tell me if I'm wrong. This program would create a new class of citizen that pays taxes but is not eligible vote. Is the program still structured in this way?
Madtom

"… if 44 percent is the wrong level for Bush’s support among Hispanics, what is the right level? Of course, we’ll never really know for sure, but I am persuaded, by playing with the numbers and making some reasonable assumptions to correct the anomalies in the NEP that it is somewhere around 39 percent." Texiera does what all pundits do: state the truth and then march right beyond it. It's really sad to see Malkin put all her gravitas behind a 5 percent difference (which is about 2 percent more than a sampling margin of error).

For a first generation immigrant, she sure does spend a lot of time baiting the immigration issue.

the frustration with Republican business elites who profit from illegal immigration at the expense of our economy and our national sovereignty

Picked any avacadoes lately? Know anybody who will? If the answer to those two questions is no, then you don't have any business worrying about the President's plan or these supposed "business elites". All of this talk about a supposed "amnesty" is just a manifestation of repressed xenophobia.

Interesting how Patrick's diatribe against illegal immigration carries such an undercurrent of Marxist economics. It's also interesting how protectionist elements of the right (Pat Buchanan and his ilk) often find themselves in unholy union with the quasi-socialists on the Democrat left on this issue. The fact is, if enough legal Americans were willing to do the same backbreaking jobs illegal immigrants currently perform, there simply would be no demand for illegal immigration in this country.

The second part of my comment is directed at the larger discussion of the guest worker plan, not to specific commenters here in this thread.

Scott, in the past, the high school boys would go out at night and on weekends into the orchards and pick the fruit. They would come back covered in soot sometimes from the smudge pots. My uncle used to do this. My brothers and I, when we were preteen, would go out into the hills (now covered by houses and shopping centers)and help herd the cattle that had been grazing. We also used to go on weekends and help install barbed wire fences. We'd make a few bucks and be treated to a bonfire in Dead Dog Canyon at the end of the weekend. The idea that Americans wouldn’t do this work is not based in reality, because they would. And does anyone think the “guest workers” will actually go back to Mexico after the picking season? Yeah, right. Why should they when they can make use of our trauma centers and emergency rooms for basic health care and get their children educated for free? The cost to taxpayers is in the billions. That’s CALIFORNIA taxpayers. If all the welfare states that benefit from donor states like California want to pony up to defer some of these costs then maybe we can talk.

I loathe the idea of amnesty not because of any sort of repressed xenophobia. I loathe amnesty because my Canadian, Irish, Peruvian, Armenian, Scottish, and Filipino friends who have paid thousands of dollars to immigration attorneys to immigrate legally are screwed by this so-called guest worker program. I loathe this inane “guest worker” program because it rewards people who have already broken the law. I loathe the “guest worker” program because it means that my citizenship doesn’t mean a fucking thing.

Drive the freeways of Los Angeles. See the third world living conditions created my overcrowding of apartments and bungalows. Be an alien in your own homeland. Then talk to me about xenophobia. I have no problem with immigration. It just needs to be controlled so that we as a society have the time to absorb the newcomers rather the newcomers simply overwhelming the local population.
Interesting how Patrick's diatribe against illegal immigration carries such an undercurrent of Marxist economics.

Concern for national sovereignty and orderly immigration is Marxist? On the contrary, Marxism would support the obliteration of national boundaries so long as it benefited the vaunted “working man”

Is it protectionist to worry that the orderly society and culture I love and have watched disintegrate over my brief lifetime will only slouch further into Third World oblivion?
Yoan, rest assured that I am far from a Marxist and far from a protectionist. However, this lame “libertarian” idea that borders should be open is asinine and impractical. It sounds nice to say that people can move freely and commerce will prosper, etc. However, what happens is that Mexico’s problems will continue to be exported to the US with no effort by the Mexican government to address their huge social and economic problems. This is not merely about economics. It is also about social stability, an orderly society, and a national identity. My immigrant ancestors brought things to this country that were used by the natives. They were also ultimately assimilated. With the numbers in SoCal there is no reason to assimilate and adopt an American identity. The guest worker program would also exacerbate this. Transient people with no allegiance tothe country. All you have to do is look at the suburbs of Paris and Amsterdam and see the problems that are caused by unassimilated masses of immigrants.

I must reiterate that this idea that Americans won’t do the back breaking work is just not true. Of course, you might have to pay a few more cents per pound if you don’t mind paying a bit more for things. Then again, if you prefer to pay a few cents less because some illegal immigrant is living in a shack and being paid slave wages then I can see why you would support illegal immigration.

Val, the idea of Republican elites is not mentioned in Malkin's post, but they are part of the problem as I and many of my fellow Californian's see it. They are part of the reason that Bush has proposed this assinine "guest worker program." I have tried to restrain my anger at Bush for this plan of his and I might have to address on my own blog. However, I might not need to due to the political human sacrifice we attempted this past election (Republican campaigned for a Democrat to oust David Drier for his shitty record on illegal immigration) the California delegation in Congress is beginning to wake up.

Patric, I am a native Angelino. I grew up in LA back in the so called good old days of the 50's & 60's. I am not hispanic. I am so offended by your post. You refer to the "overcrowded third world conditions" of immigrant neighborhoods and mourn the loss the "orderly society and culture" This is so racist it makes me want to puke. Drive the freeways you say. I say get off the freeway. When was the last time you walked and shopped in downtown LA? Stopped at a restaurant in East LA or East Hollywood? I would love to know which part of Southern California you live in. I live in San Pedro. 90% of my neighbors are Latino. They are warm, friendly, very hard working, very family oriented. Their homes are welcoming, well kept. Southern California was Native American and Latino before westward expansion. Look at the names of streets and cities. Maybe you should consider a move to Idaho or somewhere more to your liking.

Ok folks, before this thread gets way out of hand...

I know Patrick is not a racist, just like I dont think Malkin is one either. But truth of the matter is that there is an immigration problem. There are countless illegal immigrants coming into this country on a daily basis. And any way one looks at it, it is a burden on the American taxpayer.

That said, my original post was not meant to incite a race debate or an illegal alien debate. I simply wanted to state that I feel malkin addresses this issue with a little too much zeal. 44% to 39% is a slim difference when one takes into account that polls have a error factor of 3%.

And one other thing. The term "hispanic" is a term developed by the government to lump all spanish speaking persons into one category. I can assure you, being a hispanic, that I do not share the same poltical ideologies and mores of other hispanics in this country. Its a pretty diverse group in and of itself.

- I last walked in old downtown (Broadway) about two weeks ago. I take the Metro Goldline into downtown occasionally.

- I was raised in La Puente and partly in Chino.(We had to move out of La Puente when the crime got so bad that my parenst felt we were no longer safe. Ever been held at gun point? Ever seen a gang fight? Ever found a knife in a city park in freaking San Pedro?)

- The names assigned to streets and cities, with the exception of the original core of the Pueblo and the larger geographic features were assigned primarily by Spanish explorers and later by midwestern land salesmen who were trying to promote the area as America's Mediterranen.

- The 50's and 60's were not the "gold old days." I don't believe I ever said that.

- Are the 90% Latino population in San Pedro illegal immigrants? That's what I'm talking about, Kathleen. ILLEGAL! I'm not talking about the people of Mexican descent who have been here for three to four generations longer than my family. Talk to these people and see what they think about illegal immigration. You'll see that they tend to abhor it. The median household income in San Pedro is $64,000 and about 66% of the population of the city are considerd "white collar" workers. This is pretty much an indication that the people you speak of are not the illegal immigrants I have a problem with.

- You can drop the "racist" b.s. Kathleen. It's insulting, especially considering that you do not know me, where I came from, who I associate with or where I now live. Half of my family is Mexican and Filipino (Americans by birth, naturalized citizens or legal residents). I'm not a racist and it pisses me off to no end that I even have to make such a statement because you are too naive and ill informed to see the problems created by unregulated illegal immigration into our state. You can live in your idealized fantasyland of the "hard working illegal alien," but I prefer to live in reality.

- Ever hear of the 18th Street Gang? Its membership is about 22,000. 60% of the members are illegal aliens.

- 15% percent of the state prison propulation is made up of illegal aliens. (You and I pay for this.)

- The next time you hear about the closing of emergency rooms and trauma centers ask someone the rest of the story. Ask them why they are closing. They're closing because illegal immigrants use them for primary health care and the hospitals are not reimbursed. They can't afford to remain open. (Do you suppose the people who hire illegals would pay for their health insurance? hah!)

- You suggest I move to Idaho and I say, "No way!" You get too many white people together in one place and things get weird. (That's a joke for the humorless among us.) I enjoy a diverse population. However, I also enjoy being an American. A citizen of a sovereign nation and a Californian as well. This place is to my liking and that is why what is happening because of illegal immigration is so troubling to me.

Do I think all illegal immigrants are evil? No. However, they are criminals. They have violated the laws of the United States. We have a way for people to enter this country legally and work legally. They need to follow those rules.

I suppose, Kathleen, that you promenade leisurely through the shopping district of Huntington Park on a sunny afternoon and spend evenings dining at El Tepiac in East LA, enjoy late night noodles at the Vietnamese place on 3rd Street in Koreatown, and I'll bet you even take drives through the areas of Highland Park and Lincoln Heights. I'm sure you have lots of friends there. Spare me. Spare me your false sense of injustice. Pull your head out the LA Times and get back to me when you have something to lose and when you get a clue. Thsi is not about race. You have already proven that point by highlighting your (quite condescendingly so, I might add) how neat and tidy and friendly all those sweet and loving Latinos are. They sure are swell, those Latinos. (I'm sure they'd love to know you lump them in with the illegal immigrants too, by the way. You have no idea how different they are. Your ignorance astounds me.)

I suggest that you reconsider slinging the word "racist" around so easily in reference to certain people about whom you know squat, because it tends to make said people angry. (Please see above.)

Sorry Val,
Patic,you don't like being called a racist, then choose your words more carefully. I don't like being called ignorant.

Glad to know San Pedro is doing so well. Have I ever been held at gunpoint? No, but I have been held at knife point and had the crap beat out me and my life threatened because I told a neighbor, who used to be a gang member to please turn down the stereo so we could sleep. We had a gang murder 2 blocks from my house. Does this qualify? Am I aware of the 18th street gang? You bet. Are my wonderful neighbors illegal? Some of them yes. I'm also well aware of the problems with our health care, this is the field I work in. Ditto, schools, infrastucture and housing.
I am well aware of the problems caused by and the cost of illegal immigration and I suspect we agree on this issue as would most of my neighbors.
I refuse to buy the times because of their shoddy and liberal agenda driven reporting.

Your reference to "third world" and "orderly society and culture" just pissed me off thats all. If you want to discuss this off blog Val can give you my home email address.

Malkin automatically assumes that ALL hispanics are for open borders and lumps us all in with the one category.

If you disagree, I'd suggest writing letters to the newspapers (example) that give that impression.

For a first generation immigrant, she sure does spend a lot of time baiting the immigration issue.

That's because she's aware of all the issues involved here. It also has something to do with her relatives who are in the Philippines still trying to immigrate.

Picked any avacadoes lately? Know anybody who will? If the answer to those two questions is no, then you don't have any business worrying about the President's plan or these supposed "business elites".

Can you suggest an alternative to anyone picking avocados? Can you tell me why those alternatives aren't being used?

The fact is, if enough legal Americans were willing to do the same backbreaking jobs illegal immigrants currently perform, there simply would be no demand for illegal immigration in this country.

The other part of that "fact" would be legal Americans being willing to live in fields. It's not that Americans wouldn't do those jobs, it's that they don't want to be exploited and for sub-minimum wage.

If you want to learn about some of the issues involved in illegal immigration - most of which haven't been mentioned above - see all the links in this post.

If you want to learn about what Bush's "guest worker" plan would really involve, see this. Hint: it would do much, much more than you think it would.

Also, "Is Bush Pandering to the Hacendados?" has some interesting thoughts, and the links here, especially the one to this, are quite interesting.

I'm opposed to all government handouts, whether to illegal immigrants or American citizens.

Patrick, all I hear from you is control, control, control. Why should a small businessman not enter into a voluntary work contract with an "illegal" worker? What, just to satisfy your statist wet dream of an orderly and "assimilated" society?

That same illegal immigrant who works on some California farm picking strawberries is infinitely much better off making your "slave wages" than he was in Mexico or Guatemala or Honduras. And why are you so worried about losing your national identity? Do other people have that big of an influence on you? I was born overseas, and far from losing my national identity, the experience of coming into contact with so many other cultures has enriched it.

I've lived in the multi-cultural New York Area for most of my life, and I currently live in assimilated Colorado. I know what your "assimilated" society looks like, and I tell you I want nothing of it. Patrick, assimilation is something that happens naturally over time. You can't force the thing by passing some arbitrary law. It just doesn't work like that.

We've probably reached an impasse, and that's fine, we can agree to disagree. Your point of view, sadly, is a recurring theme in American history and American politics: from the Know-Nothing Party of the 19th century to the anti-immigrant right of today.

There have always been people afraid of change, people "unduly fearful of that which is foreign," xenophobes. Your primary concern is not with the *illegal* in illegal immigrant, your main worry is that the *immigrant* part is going to upset - CHANGE, God forbid right - your idealized "assimilated" society. Like it or not, according to the dictionary, that makes you a xenophobe.

Patrick is neither a xenophobe nor a rascist. Just so you know.

I hate to make things worse, but as a Filipina, Malkin probably qualifies for the title "Hispanic."

What hypocrisy, if illegal American aliens were swarming into your home country demanding benefits and bilingualism, you'd be pretty po'ed too! But we are supposed to be so guilt ridden, that we should let the corrupt degenerates who run Mexico to use us to dump their surplus population!

Yoan, get off your high horse. Why should an employer not enter into a voluntary contract with an illegal alien? Uh, let's see...how can I put this? BECAUSE HE'S ILLEGAL. That means not legal. Not here legally. As in he broke a law to get here. Get it? And yes we should "control" our borders. That is not Marxist as you stated earlier. It is perfectly in keeping with the founding ideas of the Republic. See, there's thing about providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.

I was born overseas, and far from losing my national identity

That's too bad. Hopefully your children will and you should lose some of it as well. That's what happens when you make the decision to leave the nation of your birth and go to another country. When I lived in Italy I would have never demanded that people speak to me in English or change their culture to suit me or accomodate me. I was the visitor and if I had decided to live there permanently I would have taken on the life of an Italian as much as possible. You're ancestoral heritage is one thing. It can be beautiful. I love thinking about my ancestors who were from different places and I enjoy learning about their experiences and what my ancestoral culture was. However, national identity must shift to the country to which you owe your allegiance. (I assuming it is to the US that you owe your allegiance.)

You make the assertion that I fear change. On the contrary. If you re-read my comment you will note that I do not have a problem with legal immigration. I understand that changes will occur, but they need to occur in such a way that they do not overwhelm the native cultire of the new home country. The local culure must be permitted time and rooom to absorb it. Controlled immigration is essential to maitaining the order that is essential to a civilized and united socity. Otherwise, we become like the Tower of Babel, each going his own way, speaking a language the other does not understand.

I am not a xenophobe, I am not a racist. I am a realist. You live in an "It's A Small World" libertarian fantasy where all of the cute children prance about in their native costumes and hold hands and wow isn't that swell that we're all so different?

Rest assured, I know well of the Know Nothing Party. My family is partly from Ireland. The Know Nothings didn't want immigration of Catholics and Irish (among others). I have no problem with immigration. I just think it should be done legally. You however, see nothing wrong with encouraging people to break the law.

I'm not one to tell busy bodies like you or anybody else to stop speaking English and start speaking Spanish, or vice versa, and neither should the government. As for my allegiance to this country, I think I proved that when I joined the US Army. Tell me, Patrick, what have YOU done for your country lately?

Patrick et al:
I'm confused as to exactly what your problem is here. Is your problem with mass-immigration or illegal immigration. In other words, if the same Mexican immigrants were coming in legally, would you have a problem with it? If not, the problem's really much simpler than people make it out to be.
1. Abolish the quota system as it currently exists. As I said on my blog some time ago when talking about this, anything which was first proposed by Margaret Sanger is probably worth scrapping.
2. This done, tell the Mexican government that we will suspend all remittances (upon which their government depends) until such time as they privatize their oil and other key state-run industries, set up some viable antitrust regulation (just to keep all the government chronies from buying up the industries at first) and engage in political and economic reforms so as to insure the rule of law and property rights.
3. Then you can effectively regulate the borders. Personally, I think immigration restriction with quotas is like gun control: it'll make sure only the folks we really don't want here get in. Could the above plan actually work? I think it's at least worth a shot. As to your concerns about assimilation, similar sentiments were expressed in my area (boring old central Pennsylvania) when the germans immigrated. Even a century ago, you could find German language churches (my Lutheran church among them as of 1896). But we germans did in fact assimilate, and a man of Pennsylvania German extraction, Dwight D. Eisenhower, played some small role in our nation's history if memory serves. See also the Irish in New York (who had many of the same Irish abroad political organizations that Mexicans and others have now BTW). People said the exact thing about them in the 1890s. I don't think it's racist or xenophobic, it's a legitimate worry, especially when you see it on the ground, but we have to keep in mind that these things take time. I'd also point you to Radolpho de la Garza's 1996 study "Will the Real Americans Please Stand Up", which would indicate that Mexican-Americans share our values of individualism and patriotism (yes I've read Huntington, and can send anyone who wants it a critique of his immigration position). And on social conservative positions, mass-immigration will probably strengthen the Republican position, rather than weakening it.
One last point, though I know this is probably too long already. I worked on the Bush Administration's 72 hour strike force, on a Hispanic outreach team in Philadelphia. I can tell you that, not only did the immigration issue never come up once in conversation when we were doing outreach, but nothing in any of the briefings we were given even suggested talking about it. It was all social conservatism, minority small business and economic opportunity, Etc. Honestly, I think the biggest successes we had were on social conservative issues. Latinos don't like abortion and they don't like gay marriage, and one gentleman I talked to actually told me that his priest said in mass that voting for a pro-abortion candidate was like voting for the devil. To accuse the Bush campaign of "hispandering" on the immigration issue is--based on my experience--total bull.
A. J.