37 thoughts on “The Hispanic Vote”

  1. As a California native, I’ve closely followed the hispanic population growth curve. From California electing a Ronald Reagan to the White House to present day when trucks drive through the area with Mexican flags flying and the Democratic single party state. A constant of that period was the “studies” and “reports” from folks like the LA Times et al that immigration was a great benefit and illegal immigration no problem. Subsequently, I’ve come to believe those reports and studies were noble lies designed to further somebody’s agenda. Applying that criteria to the article you cite I ask, what could their criteria be? Why derailing Trump, of course, who is surfing the immigration reform wave. I should point out that I am not a Trump fan. I’m just not a fan of agenda drive BS.

    1. California is a case study in why mass immigration is intrinsically bad. I grew up there, and I’m old enough to remember what California used to be, back in the 80’s (it was good then, but changing). What it is now is why I left.

      I’m not a Trump supporter either, but I thank him for making immigration a core issue in this election. Before he entered the race, it wasn’t.

      I won’t be voting for, or donating to, any candidate in the primary or general who is in favor of mass immigration.

      The problem IMHO is money; some special interest with big checkbooks profit from mass immigration, and some of the candidates thus are in their pocket.

      As in other kinds of corruption; follow the money.

        1. The USA, until recently, never had mass immigration. The percentage of annual immigrants was always a smaller percentage of the national population that today.

          Also, more importantly, unskilled labor was a far greater part of our economy than it is today. Thus, demand for unskilled labor is less, and the flood of it is hurting people in that sector, a lot.

          I’ve been watering my garden regularly this summer, because it needed it. However, conditions changed (a thunderstorm today dumped several inches of rain today).

          Should I thus run my irrigation system today, just because it was useful in the past (and ignore the fact the soil is currently soaked?) Or should I base my decision on the fact that conditions have changed, and adjust my watering accordingly?

          The only rational answer is to base a decision on objective current conditions, not conditions of the distant past which no longer apply.

          1. The percentage of annual immigrants was always a smaller percentage of the national population that today.

            Do you have a source for that claim? Immigrants were a higher fraction of the U.S. population from 1860 to 1910 than they are now.

            Are there really examples of national economies, in any era, that have been damaged by having too many immigrants?

            I’m old enough to remember what California used to be, back in the 80’s (it was good then, but changing). What it is now is why I left.

            California is significantly richer today than it was in the 80s. Are the negative changes you are referring to cultural changes, rather than economic?

          2. Are there really examples of national economies, in any era, that have been damaged by having too many immigrants?

            I suppose Syria would be a good example. ISIS, for example, is a mostly immigrant rebel group.

        2. This comment is a case study in how specious, unsupported, fact-free, context free pronouncements are remarkably bad.

          Please describe the ways mass migration is remarkably good; what conditions applied when it was remarkably good; whether those conditions apply now; if they don’t does it mean mass migration is remarkably good for the nation now; and most importantly:

          Please explain how it is remarkably good “…that in August 2015, a whopping 698,000 native-born Americans lost their job. This drop was offset by 204,000 foreign-born Americans, who got a job in the month of August….” And that 94 million US workers have left the work force and are not counted in the employment figure.

          1. 94 million US workers have left the work force

            That figure does not refer to “workers who have left the work force”; it refers to U.S. residents who aren’t currently in the work force. About 70 million of that 94 million are either over 65, under 18, or enrolled in college.

            I submit that the U.S. economy is remarkably good by the standards of the rest of the world, and by the standard of what the U.S. economy was 20+ years ago. And it’s certainly the case that the U.S. economy has experienced economic growth in periods when we were experiencing “mass immigration”, including the last few decades.

          2. “I submit that the U.S. economy is remarkably good by the standards of the rest of the world, and by the standard of what the U.S. economy was 20+ years ago. ”

            The rest of the world is in crummy shape so being slightly less crummy is not a great thing. I don’t know how large your “+” of 20+ years ago is but during the Reagan decade and the start of the Clinton decade the GDP was roaring compared to the last 8 years.

            Real wages are down.

            Real income down.

            Savings down.

            You’re just like the rest of the elites: You have a job so you think it’s all rosy. Just try going out to get one and report back to us.

            And you avoided the challenge. Defend your statement. Answer the questions.

            As for your ignorant comment about the 94 million not in the workforce:

            Please PLEASE try just a LITTLE research before spewing more dogmatic ignorance?

            BLS web page:

            http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

            94 million at the top of the chart. 16 years or older. Not seasonally adjusted.

            Sum of categories 1,2,3 plus persons who want a job ~= 10meg

            But all of those categories are the people who are looking and therefore countable. The uncountable are those that have stopped looking….therefore they are not listed in any category underneath the “Not In The Labor Force” part of the table, though they are included in the total.

            Note carefully that they only check back 4 weeks:

            “Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks ”

            Where are the other 84 million people, Jim? Tell us. Explain to us how they are all in college. sheesh.

            I’ll tell you where they are:

            OUT. OF. WORK.

          3. These three people disagree with Jim that the economy is remarkably good:

            “I am hot. I am mad, I am angry.”

            “There is something profoundly wrong when … the average American is working longer hours for lower wages and we have shamefully the highest rate of child poverty of any major country on earth.”

            “It used to be when productivity went up in America, everybody got to share.”

            “Every month government comes out with a statistic on unemployment. Last statistic said that official unemployment was 5.3%. But what they forgot to tell you is that statistic doesn’t include those people who have given up looking for work, those people who are working part time. Add it all together and real unemployment is over 10%.”

            “How many people in your own neighborhoods are in trouble, can look their kids in the eyes and say with heart, ‘Honey, it’s going to be OK?’ Not enough! Not enough!”

            “I’ve got the vision, the policies, the skills, the tenacity and the determination to get us back on the right track.”

            The three would be Biden, Sanders, Hillary.

            As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, the recovery that started a few months after Obama took office has been the worst since the Great Depression, with GDP and employment growth far below the average post-World War II recoveries.

            Median family incomes have declined, millions are working part-time jobs because there isn’t full-time work, 13 million have dropped out of the labor force entirely. Millions more are poor and on food stamps. And the latest IBD/TIPP poll shows 46% think we’re still in a recession and 52% say it’s not improving.

            http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090815-770048-dem-candidates-slam-obama-economy-but-not-obama-himself.htm#ixzz3lG9AdCaV

        3. Except most Democrats think the USA is bad. Open borders that threaten to change that culture and societal structure of our country is something that appeals to Democrats but not out of a love of country.

        5. Just curious, Jim, on how bringing in millions of Indians on visas is good for the country? I understand the need to bring in foreign labor if there is a need, but I don’t understand bringing in foreign labor at the expense of American labor.

          If you really think that these tech companies need Indians rather than Americans, then you are a fool. I know many American programmers who do not have a job but are capable programmers.

          1. Letting in foreign workers can hurt specific resident workers (the ones hurt most are typically other recent immigrants, since they compete for the same sorts of jobs). But economists believe that the net effect on native workers is positive. This has been observed in many situations. For example, native workers saw wages rise 9% after Israel admitted a huge number of Russian immigrants.

            With regard to your specific example, a large fraction of Silicon Valley startups have been founded by Indian immigrants. Those companies have in turn created jobs for both native-born and immigrant employees. There’s no question that if we’d limited immigration of computer professionals from India decades ago our economy today would be worse off.

        6. It’s interesting to note that back in the 1800s when large numbers of immigrants came to America, we had so much land that we were giving it away for free to homesteaders. Our population was a tiny fraction of what it is today, too. Back then, some 70% of the people worked on farms. Today, the number is around 2%. We didn’t have a welfare state, either. Things change. What worked good back then isn’t likely to work today.

          1. Back then, as you note, most Americans worked on farms. Today most Americans work in service industries, and there is no shortage of services that could be performed by new residents. The idea that the U.S. has run out of things for new people to do is an odd sort of zero-sum idea that one usually associates with the anti-capitalist left.

    2. Problem being that the media doesn’t cooperate. Illegal immigrants are conflated with legal ones, Criminal illegal immigrants are conflated with non-criminals, and mentioning the China’s baby tourist industry for American citizenship is portrayed as all Asians.

      Republicans don’t do this through poor choice of words. These conflations and misrepresentations are intentional by the Democrat media.

      When it comes to minority relations, people always say Republicans need to do X but there are other players. How the Democrat media stereotypes non-Democrats has just as much, and I argue more, effect than what Republicans do. It isn’t just reaching out to minorities but rather countering the racial stereotypes and inculcation of the Democrat party, essentially de-brainwashing the nation.

    3. I’m not hearing any anti-immigrant rhetoric, just anti illegal immigrant discussion. There is a substantial difference. I know dozens of legal immigrants including my wife. They’re pissed about the illegal immigrants, too. Legal immigrants had to jump through a lot of hoops and pay a good deal of money to comply with the rules. To those who want to open the borders to whomever can get across, legal immigrants are a bunch of chumps.

      1. I’m not hearing any anti-immigrant rhetoric, just anti illegal immigrant discussion.

        Look at this thread. Your comments and Wodun’s were the first to draw a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Arizona CJ, Jon and Gregg are arguing about immigration in general, including legal immigration. If you think letting in too many immigrants will damage the culture, that’s an argument that applies to both legal and illegal immigration. And that argument — that too many people from elsewhere will damage the U.S. — is a big turn-off to Hispanic- and Asian-American voters.

        1. Gosh, I’m sorry to upset Hispanics and Asians when I see my fellow citizens lose jobs to foreigners.

          And that includes you, Jim. You care so little about Americans that you hire foreigners for your company.

        2. “Arizona CJ, Jon and Gregg are arguing about immigration in general, including legal immigration.”

          Can’t speak for Arizona or Jon but in my case you lie and you know it.

          In thread after thread I’ve stated that legal immigration is good; that it allows the economy to calibrate the work force both in terms of skill set as well as numbers. I have stated numerous times that when you need workers you open the spigot and when your work force is about right you close the spigot (though not to zero). I’ve stated numerous times that you adjust who you bring in based upon the skills they have that we are lacking. I’ve also stated numerous times that neither of these things can be calibrated perfectly because there are leads and lags in the system. But that’s life.

          Either you never read my posts or you just……forgot. If the latter, you exhibit your Demi-god’s favorite tactic:

          Accuse someone of a position the opposite of what they have stated publically.

          That’s pretty low.

          Either way don’t lie about what I said.

        3. “….Gregg are arguing about immigration in general, including legal immigration. ”

          In fact I challenge you to show us all where I argue against immigration in general.

          Put up or shut up. Once and for all.

          I demand you provide proof, right from this Blog.

          This is scurrilous, rotten, behavior on your part, and I’m going to dredge up posts of mine where I said I’m all for legal calibrated immigration.

          I defy you to provide a post of mine where I argue against all immigration in general.

        4. Here’s one. Ther ewill be others. Took me less than a minute:

          Note the sentence “I WANT TO SUPPORT THE FORMER….” Caps mine.

          Don’t Get Fooled Again On Immigration
          Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013 @ 6:45 AM, by Rand Simberg
          Gregg
          April 3, 2013 at 11:05 AM

          “When I talk about legalizing immigration, I mean making it legal, like aspirin, not “legal” like heroin. Was that really not clear?”

          Yes it was really not clear. Neither is your aspirin vs heroin sentence but don’t bother explaining it.

          Ok so now we agree that there is a method for legal immigration, and that there are people using that path to legally immigrate into the country. And since you agree there is a method of legal immigration, you must also agree that illegal immigration exists.

          Thank you. I want to support the former and prevent the latter (to the greatest degree possible).

          To me, all we really need is:

          1) Make that legal process streamlined, efficient, and vastly more responsive to the nation’s needs.

          2) shut out illegal immigration.

          3) prevent any illegal immigrant from working or using welfare.

          We, as a sovereign nation get to decide who comes in and who does not. You may not like that Ed, but that’s the way it is.

          I sincerely doubt that if a family of 4, all strangers to you, showed up in your living room and demanded you get them beers and sodas, said they liked your bedroom so move into the cellar, and said that dinner at 6 would be just fine….I sincerely doubt you’d put up with that.

          Ponder the term “sovereign state”.

  3. A few things people, either don’t know or don’t want you to know about the Hispanic vote. In Mexico the vast majority are not very partisan. They know that all politicians are corrupt so they will vote for the one with the best bread and circus. Here in the US, they have been trained that the GOP hates Mexicans by the leftist media (the Spanish speaking TV is HARD core leftist, to the point it makes MSNBC look like Fox) And the GOP makes it easy for them to do this because they are stupid.
    IF the GOP wants to woo Hispanics. Then start in any southwestern city and start asking questions. Don’t think you know the answers until you ask the questions. Then buy up time on Spanish TV with a message that does not patronize. “You are being lied to by the Democrats. They think you are weak and treat you like children. We think that all men and woman that work hard and follow the law should be treated with respect. They want slaves that laws can’t touch. We want citizens that care about our laws.”

    Building a wall probably wouldn’t work any better than it did for China, unless you are willing to guard it with deadly force (ie: mine fields and automatic fire machine gun nests.)

      3. “How much of this is explained by the fact that the retiring baby-boomers are almost all native-born?”

        None, go take a course in statistics, and pay attention when they teach ratios.

  5. Jim:

    ““….Gregg are arguing about immigration in general, including legal immigration. ””

    Me:

    In fact I challenge you to show us all where I argue against immigration in general.

    Put up or shut up. Once and for all.

    I demand you provide proof, right from this Blog.
    ——————————-

    Yeah that’s what I thought Jim – El Zippo from you. Because you lied about what I said and you know it.

    Don’t you ever EFFIN dare to put words in my mouth again or play your stupid Obama “lies about the other side games” with me again.

    Effin moron….you’re all mouth and no brain.

Comments are closed.