Posted on 07/08/2010 5:48:43 AM PDT by Palmetto Patriot
The reaction to the substance of Arizona's immigration law has been predictably divided. Conservatives claim the law is necessary to clamp down upon a porous border, while liberals claim the law legalizes racial profiling.
The reaction to the politics of the law, by contrast, has been much more unified among commentators. Most Democrats and many Republicans have suggested the law will be at least somewhat damaging to the Arizona Republican Party.
California is frequently held up as the template for what could go wrong for the Republicans. The story goes that before 1996, the California Republican Party performed well, holding the governorship and frequently carrying the state in presidential races.
-snip-
So, in California, we see (a) no effect of the ballot initiatives on presidential support for the parties; (b) cross-racial voting coalitions for the initiatives. Both conclusions are contrary to the thrust of the "Prop 187 killed the California GOP" theory.
There are obviously, at the least, serious problems with the most common analogy used to support the narrative that the Arizona GOP has just suffered a self-inflicted, slow-bleeding stomach wound. But these data relate to the situation in Arizona in three additional ways.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
"...I have long been skeptical of "Permanent [Republican/Democratic] Majority" theories, and the argument we've worked on rebutting here is a classic example of why we are skeptical. These theories are premised upon a static analysis of present trends, extrapolated out over decades. But history is replete with examples of such trends abruptly ceasing, or reversing. In 1928 you would have been laughed at for suggesting that, in 40 years, a Southern Democratic President would end Jim Crow, and blacks would vote 90% Democrat for the 40 succeeding years. In 1960, you would have been ridiculed for suggesting that a Republican would carry white Catholics fifty years later."
Yeah this writer finally makes a point that I’ve been repeating to friends for years. Even Latinos (citizens) come out in favor of tougher immigration restrictions on a regular basis. But the idiots in Washington (Dem and Rep) as well as the TV talking heads always assume that Latinos vote in a monolithic bloc and are angry over efforts like the AZ law. Their unwillingness to look beyond their ingrained trope kind of smacks of lazy stereotyping.
The only latinos who are angry over SB1070 are those that are making their living off the backs of the illegals. The immigration attornys, the crew bosses who only pay their guys half of the cash they get for the work, the guy who runs the temporary labor shops, etc. Oh yeah, and the drug dealers (got to make sure those illegals have enough money to buy the street drugs) and Western Union.
Why isn’t helping Illegals considered to be aiding and abetting criminal activity?
It should be. I’d love to see Mayor Gordon (Phoenix) prosecuted. I’m sure he’s getting money under the table from somewhere, could even be from the drug cartels. Things like that need to be investigated. We used to have investigative reporters who did things like that, but not any more. Our local paper, if you can call it that, is totally in the bag for illegals.
Ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.