Wow, that was one of the more cynical and racist posts I have seen on this site.
How about looking at this from more than one side? Doubt every one at these marches was a Dem for one thing, but I could bet you over 90% of them are immigrants or the desendants of imigrants. Or how about how thiese bills criminalize the worker but not the employer. Like I said, a cynical, short sighted, bigoted, just plain un thought out post.
And no, I am not for open borders and amnesty.
And enough about Hill and the Bible, why can't a Dem yak on about the good book? Only for the GOP? Lame.

The other issue is of course conspicious consumption. If you are of really high status, say a journalist or a movie star, you demonstrate your lack of fear of competition of millions of low wage workers by supporting illegal immigration. It's like driving a really expensive car.

Sadly, for affluent Liberals the politics is all about showing their status.

Wow, that was one of the more cynical and racist posts I have seen on this site.

Alas, when you have no argument play the racist card. Unfortunately for your position my family are "people of color," (and mighty cute at that). How about crawling out from under that forty-year-old pile of campaign posters?

You're of course assuming that the republicans are the only logical choice for everyone (including minorities). Yet the republican party has been remarkably tone deaf to minorities in the past (and present).

Things like the 2004 elections, where they employed lawyers in high minority areas to contest ballots. In fact, it seems like republicans do very little to help poor areas of cities, or areas with large amounts of crime and drug problems. Or there was the Trent Lott fiasco. Or the stupid virginia law about 'hanging pants'. Additionally, the fact that republicans rarely address groups like the NAACP. Now, these are all superficial problems, but since poltics is all surface and little substance, the GOP is going to have to work on the little things.

Now, I understand that these are often hostile pollitcal groups, but they are in general responsible for the pollitical views of a large portion of minority voters, and until you address those groups, the GOP will still be short the minority vote.

Now, I think you're also partly right. The democrats have done very little to truly deserve the minority vote either (although, I notice that your post holds a lot of screed, with no specific points). I think why the votes are shifting has very little to do with democratic handling, and more to do with the fact that many of these groups are very religious, and agree with the GOP on things like gay-marriage and abortion.

Still, I wish you had done 2 things with your post:
1)level actual fully-fleshed arguments at the democratic party (How are you sure the left "hates the poor"? how are they voting against their long term interests? How does this rant relate to Hillary? URL please :)

2) What is the republican party doing to win away those votes?

That is by far the least-informed rant I have ever seen on WoC. Seriously, I'm going to wait until this is off the front page before recommending this blog to friends again. I beg you, go look at voter breakdowns by race (and overall) in the last election and then come back and write something coherent. What you've got right now bears no resemblance to electoral demographic reality.

Alchemist:

Things like the 2004 elections, where they employed lawyers in high minority areas to contest ballots. In fact, it seems like republicans do very little to help poor areas of cities, or areas with large amounts of crime and drug problems. Or there was the Trent Lott fiasco. Or the stupid virginia law about 'hanging pants'. Additionally, the fact that republicans rarely address groups like the NAACP. Now, these are all superficial problems, but since poltics is all surface and little substance, the GOP is going to have to work on the little things.

I'm going to assume you're not baiting, and just take this at face value. Everyone is a little tone deaf, because e'en though we're political animals we're also human beings. I'm pretty sure the Lott remark was just an attempt to say something nice about an ancient and soon-to-be-no-more legislator. From Harry Browne:

If the Trent Lott fiasco were a movie or a play, it would be panned as an unrealistic farce. But it has a purpose. It has allowed the politicians to once more divert attention from anything important – getting us to focus on irrelevancies.

And why the deuce would they want to do that, I wonder?

Regarding the army of lawyers sent to disenfranchise black voters, there are two forms of "voting error:" Overvote and undervote. People who vote without proper credentials disenfranchise those who have proper credentials, including black, hispanics or other "people of color" who vote differently. So you seem to be issuing a complaint about a well established tradition of "poll watching," which the Democrats practice as assiduously as Republicans. (I ought to know, I was a poll-watcher for the Democrats.)

There is some truth to the fact that Republicans haven't addressed issues of poverty, whether in the inner city or elsewhere. Specifically, they simply aren't as committed to the notion of the "ownership society" as a well-known Democrat: Pat Moynihan. But there aren't many Democrats on that vacant bandwagon either.

Which is, in part, my point.

There are lots of non-Marxist remedies available. No one has claimed that brass ring yet.

As for the point about "hating the poor" I think it's more like not giving a hoot. There's a distinct difference between programs that end poverty and programs that subsidize it. Granted, the Republicans don't have much credibility on that score, but why isn't that seen as an opportunity? Such programs fit well within the Lockean constraints of the national identity, and they'd appeal to my dangerously cute family as well.

I'm always amused by how the State turns people against each other. In this case the locals are fighting the immigrants over who gets to suck at the government teat.

There are other factors of course. Some people are worried that an influx of genetically inferior, low IQ Hispanics will lead to an avalanche of crime and permanently damage "our culture." If I gave a damn about "society" such things would worry me as well.

Since I don't actually care about "society" or "national greatness" and instead am interested in individual liberty, I'm in favor of increased freedom of movement.

Free Trade in Products, Capital, and Labor!

I'd be tempted to dismiss this post if I hadn't seen a very conscious policy along similar lines here in Canada, courtesy of the Liberal Party.

Ironically the greatest thing the left has substantatively done for the poor was a Republican idea: welfare reform.

The Right since at least Reagan has improved the lives of the poor objectively, but hurt them subjectively. In other words everyones standard of lives is far greater than it would have been, but the gap between top and bottom has grown.

To the left that gap is the problem, not the objective standard of living. To the right that is a bunch of commie nonsense. This is exactly why the left cant get that solidarity with the lower middle classes anymore- there is something inexplicable logically about worrying what other people have instead of what you and your family have. Poor people want to be rich people, not eliminate rich people.

I'm always amused by how the State turns people against each other. In this case the locals are fighting the immigrants over who gets to suck at the government teat.

The conflict as I see it isn't over access to the government teat, but access to jobs.

some people are worried that an influx of genetically inferior, low IQ Hispanics will lead to an avalanche of crime and permanently damage "our culture." If I gave a damn about "society" such things would worry me as well.

I guess you'd give a damn if the society were more likely to impose its values on you, but the issue you mention doesn't animate me. While there is an apparent IQ and achievement gap there's no evidence that it has much to do with genetics. It's purely an upbringing issue, related mostly to the first three years of life. So you've simply chosen an issue that, in itself, doesn't have much merit. Consider why no one tells "Pollack jokes" any more. When Catholic Poles came to this country they were essentially rural rubes, without much training in how to become successful in this kind of society. So the Pollack joke made sense to people, because they'd all seen dumb Pollacks. It took about two generations for that whole experience to wash out, but now the jokes don't mean anything to people. They aren't funny, because Pollacks aren't dumb.

Since I don't actually care about "society" or "national greatness" and instead am interested in individual liberty, I'm in favor of increased freedom of movement. Free Trade in Products, Capital, and Labor!

The strategy to gain electoral control through this mechanism might well backfire if the influx of workers is slow enough that we can assimilate them. The argument that we should just open borders directly contradicts the Madisonian principle that a free society is built on "cross-cutting alliances." If you have jurisdictions that attempt to maintain their own local rules (federalism) in the face of such drastically tattered borders all you'll get is a writ-large authoritarian state without any local jurisdictions.

Even though you don't care about "society" you seem to care about the Lockean values upon which this unique culture was founded, so I assume the loss of that as a cultural compass might be something you'd miss? It's also a bit harder to "live free!" if the culture is descending into anarchy, since the universal remedy for such a situation is always the same: Robespierre.

But again, the Democrat strategy could easily backfire. Everything depends on the sustainable rate of assimilation.

Ted --

1. Wages for Mexican workers in Mexico are around $1 per hour. In the US it's around $9 (those here illegally) . Many object to equalization downwards towards the Mexican figure. That's an economic argument (Cesar Chavez fought against illegal workers because they lowered wages).

2. Identity politics are identity politics. The proliferation of Mexican flags and flat assertion of Mexican identity and therefore, special treatment due the illegal workers, are particularly noxious. It is defacto exclusionary to all those who are not Mexican. It is also guaranteed to generate alternative identity politics.

Americans are very sympathetic to individual claims of fair play and equal treatment. Rather unsympathetic to group identity claims.

Alchemist -- it is true that Dems because of various patronage and identity arguments (i.e. you can't be both "Black and Republican" aimed at Colin Powell and Condi Rice), Reps have been excluded from African American success. There is also a huge gap between Republican Law and Order and impoverished African American communities desire to blame scapegoats for the appallingly high rates of imprisonment of young Black men.

That being said, Conservative social attitudes towards gay marriage and other cultural issues offer consonance between Middle and Upper Class African Americans and Republicans. Economic issues tie poor African Americans and populist Republicans on illegal immigration (which hurts wages and employment of poor African Americans) and economic protectionism (new manufacturing jobs for African Americans which pay better than service jobs).

You can see this in the rebuilding of New Orleans. Illegal aliens working under appalling conditions (no safety equipment or OSHA standards) crowd out native New Orleans residents who want the jobs also. More broadly "What's the Matter With Kansas" is that citizens and legal residents on the lower end of the wage scale don't want massive wage competition. Along with ethnic and social networks that crowd them out from opportunity in Unions and other job issues.

Aside -- no borders immigration eventually invites ... no borders. Thus no restrictions whatsoever into open and sustained intervention in Mexico prior to eventual annexation and incorporation into the Union. Robert Frost was right.

Steve:

That is by far the least-informed rant I have ever seen on WoC. Seriously, I'm going to wait until this is off the front page before recommending this blog to friends again. I beg you, go look at voter breakdowns by race (and overall) in the last election and then come back and write something coherent. What you've got right now bears no resemblance to electoral demographic reality.

I notice that you're not actually stating a position, since if you did so you might have to actually defend it. So basically I haven't a clue what you're talking about. The "demographics" are clearly such that they inspire Democrats to believe they're ascendant... and the immigrant thesis is entirely consistent with that analysis. Tiexiera does actually use a few statistics to support his claim, and he's a highly regarded researcher. So it's natural the Dems would look to him for guidance in setting strategy.

Again, whatever you're talking about is apparently a closely held secret known only to you. I stand by the assessment. If I'm wrong, well... it happens. At least people are clear about what I'm saying.

My father was a California Democratic politician. His last hurrah was a few weeks in D.C. from December 1994 through January 1995 plotting with Leon Panetta in the White House on how the Clinton administration could best help California Democrats exploit the wonderful opportunity given them by then-Governor Pete Wilson's ultimately self-defeating (for the GOP) exploitation of anti-immigrant feeling in California. The 1994 California ballot Proposition 187 (I think that was the number) went after illegal immigrants big-time.

But boy did it honk off California Hispanics, especially the ones who could qualify for citizenship but hadn't applied for it. As shown by private polls taken by the California Democratic Party.

So Pop and Panetta agreed that the best way for the Clinton administration to help here was to dramatically speed up the naturalization process in California, and encourage Hispanics to use it. This was wildly successful.

After the 1998 statewide elections, there was only one Republican in statewide office. It has been true ever since that any Republican candidate for statewide office in a general election starts out with a million vote disadvantage just from the Hispanic vote. Governor Schwarzenegger would had problems there in a general election, but he was elected in an off-year recall election.

I don't know if Demosophist's contention here is correct, but I have personal knowledge that it is the sort of thing which successful politicians do. Not Democrats alone. All successful politicians. It's normal.

People in the Democratic Party have done a calculation that tells them the only way they can achieve an electoral majority in the future is if they swell the ranks of voters with large numbers of "people of color." The motivation is really quite cynical as well as short-sighted.

This is not a calculation, it's the instinctive reaction of a contemporary Democratic Party which is no longer "democratic" but oligarchic - not empowering but attempting to control constituencies by controlling their elites.

Democrats control union leaders, so they figure that the rank and file owe them their votes. (They still think this although the rank and file has been rebelling at the polls since 1972, at least.) Likewise blacks. Democrats have open-border immigration activists in their pocket, so they expect immigrants to turn out for them at the polls. Those ingrates who resist this coercion get the "Uncle Tom" treatment.

The whole problem with racial/social spokesmen is that they derive nearly all of their authority from the fact that the people they claim to represent are miserable and powerless. It is therefore in their interest that such people remain as wretched as possible. The Democratic Party is now a coalition of such persons, which is why the yellow-dog Democratic base is composed of social elites, and why the so-called "Party of the Little Guy" can't count on the little people to vote for them.

Tom:

The percentage of naturalized immigrants and their offspring who vote their expected partisan identity generally declines over time unless there's a steady influx of new immigrants who still have the old ties and think in the old ways. There's currently a counter-argument to this literature which says that most of the naturalized Latinos have been white and that explains the time trend. Note that this argument has set itself in the quicksand of race, so is right in the middle of current Democrat Party strategy. Personally I don't think there's any particularly good reason to think that non-white Latinos are less likely than white Latinos to eventually vote Republican. But the Republicans haven't really formulated a political message to attract these folks, whose primary interest is in financial success. Of course, those who are trapped in poverty will always vote for the social programs that keep them there as long as they have no clear alternative.

Ultimately I think the big disappointment for the Democrats will come when large numbers of black voters start to abandon the old voting patterns. Martin Lipset has observed that black families who moved to the northern cities kept their rural culture largely due to policies and attitudes that kept them isolated. This was true until the Civil Rights Act put an end to the most draconian of those policies. So black populations got a late start, but their story will parallel the story of the Catholic Polish population from here on. That's why you see more and more genuine leadership within the black population that calls into question some of these assumptions. The trend will continue and grow over the next several generations until blacks are no longer a uniform voting block.

I'm not stating a position because your post assumes a number of things that simply do not match up with electoral reality. For me to debate you about such things would be kind of like debating Koosvanian mating rituals--perhaps fun, but meaningless.

I recommend the statistics here: CNN Election Results

Then, I recommend the analysis of minority voting patterns (as well as the opportunity for a meta-analysis of Texeira's beliefs) here: Donkey Rising Post

As you'll see, a number of your premises are flawed (and that's not even going into a discussion of why your economics are questionable).

Many hispanics vote conservative after they've been here long enough to become convinced of the American Ideology, so the only way this "browning of America" could actually work is if the influx is faster than our capacity to assimilate the new recruits into the melting pot.

There is nothing in either the CNN statistics or Texeira's analysis to suggest that. I specifically commend to your attention the section wherein he details which issues are and are not effective wedge issues for the GOP with Hispanic voters.

And multiculturalism helps, because it insulates the immigrants from all that destructive Lockean propoganda about individual sovereignty.

Where on Earth did you come up with that? I've heard a lot of criticism of multiculturalism and agree with a reasonable fraction of it, but this is the first time I've seen someone claim that it's all an anti-Lockean plot. Do you think Hobbes is orchestrating it from beyond the grave or something?

Also, the U.S. is not a strict Lockean country, and has not been since at least West Coast Hotel. FDR and his East Coast team of DAR children did far more to undermine what you seem to believe is the American Ideology than immigrant rights groups could even dream of today.

People in the Democratic Party have done a calculation that tells them the only way they can achieve an electoral majority in the future is if they swell the ranks of voters with large numbers of "people of color." The motivation is really quite cynical as well as short-sighted.

...

In short, they've made a decision to undermine and, if possible, destroy the ideology that holds the nation together, simply because it's inconvenient for them and they can't think of policies that fit within the constraints that Lockeanism imposes.

So, Democrats are out to destroy America again? Darn, I missed the memo.

How the heck am I supposed to have a rational debate with someone who thinks I'm trying to undermine the state with my poisoned words? Seriously, give me some ideas here, because I'm not sure where to go with this one. That statement effectively delegitimates everything I could possibly say.

Not only that, but it accuses me of being part of a group trying to undermine the Constitution. Listen, Demosophist, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and if you're claiming that I'm breaking that oath even by association, you'd darn well better have more and better facts than you've got here. Do you understand that, if what you're saying is 100% true, you're accusing me of committing a felony in the State of New York? As I've explained, all I see here are unsupported assertions and paranoid accusations, and I will not stand by and be tarred by your mad brush.

I'm willing to argue all kinds of things, but I will not tolerate being accused of knowingly undermining my country.

I'm not stating a position because your post assumes a number of things that simply do not match up with electoral reality. For me to debate you about such things would be kind of like debating Koosvanian mating rituals--perhaps fun, but meaningless.

Oh sure, that's an argument alright. Which premises? What's your point? I mean, I'm being fairly clear (not much like "Koosvanian" (sic) mating rituals)so it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with an argument. So why all the bloviating?

Many hispanics vote conservative after they've been here long enough to become convinced of the American Ideology, so the only way this "browning of America" could actually work is if the influx is faster than our capacity to assimilate the new recruits into the melting pot.

There is nothing in either the CNN statistics or Texeira's (sic) analysis to suggest that. I specifically commend to your attention the section wherein he details which issues are and are not effective wedge issues for the GOP with Hispanic voters.

OK I think we're finally getting to the nub. You simply think Tiexiera is right and don't buy the notion that immigrant groups become more conservative with time (whether brown, black, white or yellow). I don't suppose it would make a difference to observe that the literature on immigrant groups is a lot more venerable than the CNN polls you mention, which aren't even a time trend, let alone controlled for any variables like income, SES, etc. In addition, the Tiexiera analysis, including the analysis of wedge issues that you mention, is on the level of "attitudes," and wishfully ignores the much more extensive literature on "values," that I cite below.

But you know, maybe it won't happen this time. Trends change. Even though the data suggest otherwise, maybe our values really have changed and there's no longer a dominant Lockean ideology. Maybe we've joined that social democratic world consensus and Lockeanism is just passe. Maybe, but I'll bet not.

And multiculturalism helps, because it insulates the immigrants from all that destructive Lockean propaganda about individual sovereignty.

Where on Earth did you come up with that? I've heard a lot of criticism of multiculturalism and agree with a reasonable fraction of it, but this is the first time I've seen someone claim that it's all an anti-Lockean plot. Do you think Hobbes is orchestrating it from beyond the grave or something?

It seems a fairly straightforward inference from the observation that multiculturalism is a Balkanizing influence, something that few here would dispute. I don't know if there's a conscious plot (and clearly never said there was so that's a bit of a straw man), but there's certainly no problem recognizing that these "communities of color" are strongholds for the Democratic vote, so any policy that threatens to break them up would be looked upon with suspicion by anyone with a political bone in their body. I'm amazed you think this even controversial.

And the internal politics of these enclaves, which have always been characterized by authoritarian politics, isn't hard to miss either (unless your eyes are shut). Perhaps the primary reason the trend away from block voting isn't more pronounced is precisely this Balkanization and ghettoization that's facilitated by politically correct "multicultural" policies. To say that it's entirely deliberate might be a stretch, but to say that the supporters are completely unaware of the implications is also a stretch.

What amazes me is that you think the data suggests anything else.

Also, the U.S. is not a strict Lockean country, and has not been since at least West Coast Hotel. FDR and his East Coast team of DAR children did far more to undermine what you seem to believe is the American Ideology than immigrant rights groups could even dream of today.

Data from the National Election Study to the General Social Survey and even the World Values Study show growing consensus, across regions, in the US on these Lockean foundation values. There is still disparity on attitudes, but a growing consensus on values. And that consensus (except for equality of opportunity) simply does not favor Democrats. Not that it couldn't. It doesn't, at least not in the long run.

These trends reverse what amounts to an aberration resulting from the FDR/Depression phenomenon. (See Everett Ladd and Martin Lipset.) Now, it's not very fashionable to say this, I know. And it certainly goes against the conventional wisdom, but it's nonetheless true (Tiexiera's thesis notwithstanding).

So again, you don't quibble about whether the Dems have adopted this strategy, you just think it has more legs than I do. Is that about it? If so, what's all the huff and puff? I'm being straightforward and clear. Why aren't you?

In short, they've made a decision to undermine and, if possible, destroy the ideology that holds the nation together, simply because it's inconvenient for them and they can't think of policies that fit within the constraints that Lockeanism imposes.

So, Democrats are out to destroy America again? Darn, I missed the memo.

The crux of the statement isn't that there's a memo circulating, but that the general behavior is self-destructive. It doesn't take the American Ideology very seriously, so doesn't think undermining it will have a significant impact. But the commitment is to social democratic values, not Lockean values. No doubt they believe this a good thing, so they're on the side of the angels.

Referring to the "Why No Socialism?" literature that goes all the way back to Friedrich Engels but also includes Louis Hartz, there was a conscious realization that Lockeanism was bound to be more attractive than the nanny state, so anyone that preferred social democracy would tend to see Lockeanism as a bar. They'd tend to see that, because it is. You may not be aware of this history, but that doesn't mean it's ill considered or illegitimate. Just uncomfortable.

And I reiterate that it's not only wrong in policy terms, but wrong politically. It won't and can't work except by factionalizing politics in the US to the point that it becomes self-destructive. It's a "centrifugal strategy" at its core. It doesn't have to be deliberate in the sense you mean, to be pernicious.

I'm sorry, but I don't entirely buy Lipset's arguments. I've read too many books poking holes in them. I'm not saying his scholarship isn't good...just that it's dated.

Teixeira cites studies on values issues, as well. It's right below the attitudes stuff. Where are you getting this other material? Titles are great, but citations and/or links would be even better.

As for CNN's polls, I'm just using them to illustrate my contention that your view of life as it is at present doesn't jibe with the most recent national polling results, and I don't think we'll see any serious shift this year that can't be explained by controlling for anger at Bush's handling of the war.

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Demosophist ,

"In short, they've made a decision to undermine and, if possible, destroy the ideology that holds the nation together, simply because it's inconvenient for them and they can't think of policies that fit within the constraints that Lockeanism imposes. The name of the play is "end around" and they're hoping they don't get shoved out of bounds. Somewhere along the line they made a commitment to a form of relabelled and reconditioned Marxism and have so lost touch that they don't even know the origins of their own belief system."

Steve:

I'm sorry, but I don't entirely buy Lipset's arguments. I've read too many books poking holes in them. I'm not saying his scholarship isn't good...just that it's dated.

Well, I don't know if they're dated so much as out of favor. I saw him debate Nathan Glaser on the "lonely crowd" theme, and he destroyed Glaser... in a gentle sort of way, of course. This was in the late 90's. He's been ill since 2001, so hasn't made any public appearances. I'd amend Martin's thesis a bit, by observing that there's a dominant and recessive culture in the US, which is a theme developed by Thelma Lavine (a philosopher, not a sociologist). It makes sense to say that Americanism isn't the entire story, but I do subscribe to Marty's thesis that if you pull on that string too much the whole tapestry could unravel.

I don't buy Charles Taylor's objections to the Lipset thesis either. They're begging the question about why Americans believe the way they do. It's not a real argument.

Teixeira cites studies on values issues, as well. It's right below the attitudes stuff. Where are you getting this other material? Titles are great, but citations and/or links would be even better.

Well, I could be wrong. That's always a possibility. But it would surprise me if the dice weren't loaded in favor of Americanism/Lockeanism, even though there's been a social democratic drift. There's also Inglehart's thesis about post-modernism, but some very traditional societies score very highly on his postmodernism scale, which tells me there's a flaw in the ointment.

As for CNN's polls, I'm just using them to illustrate my contention that your view of life as it is at present doesn't jibe with the most recent national polling results, and I don't think we'll see any serious shift this year that can't be explained by controlling for anger at Bush's handling of the war.

I don't think people are as angry at Bush as Donkey Rising seems to hope. People are just breaking with the lame duck incumbent because they're looking forward, which is natural. And it's true that the Dems are steeped in Bush Hatred, much the way a prior generation were steeped in Reagan Hatred. But without Bush to hate, or as he becomes less relevant, I don't see how that sentiment is going to help the Dems much.

BTW, Lipset is a Democrat and was on the DLC with Clinton. There aren't any real anchors in that party to replace him (and Moynihan), unfortunately. Sorry I don't have links. I'm in the middle of moving to NJ so I'm doing more blogging than is really healthy anyway.

Need i remind every the unemployment rate is at 4.8%? Now if illegal immigrants really are taking jobs American's want, one would obviously expect the unemployment rate in states with more illegal immigrants to be higher than those with fewer.

According to the 2000 census:
Percentage of illegals compared to population:

California 6.2% illegal
Arizona 4.9% illegal
Texas 4.6% illegal
Nevada 4.3%
Illinois 3.4%
Colorado 3.1%
Georgia 2.6%
NJ 2.5%
New York 2.5%
New Mexico 2.0%
Florida 2.0%

Unemployment rates by state:
California 4.8% (national average)
Arizona 4.8%
Texas 5.0%
Nevada 3.6%
Illinois 5.2%
Colorado 4.7%
Georgia 4.8%
NJ 4.5%
New York 4.6%
New Mexico 4.9%
Florida 3.0%

The 5 highest unemployment rates are:
Michigan- 6.2% unemployed, .7% illegal
So Carolina- 6.2% unemployed, .8% illegal
Kentucky- 6.3% unemployed, .4% illegal
Alaska- 6.7% unemployed, .7% illegal
Mississippi- 8.4% unemployed, .2% illegal

By these numbers one could make the argument that less illegals leads to higher unemployment! Now its obviously more complicated because illegals flow to jobs. But i think its a tough argument to make when California can have twice the illegals as the rest of the country and an average unemployment rate.

illegals source
unemployment source
census

Mark:

Need i remind every the unemployment rate is at 4.8%? Now if illegal immigrants really are taking jobs American's want, one would obviously expect the unemployment rate in states with more illegal immigrants to be higher than those with fewer.

Everything else being equal, which of course isn't the case. The chief variables for which you'd have to control are industrial mix and sectoral unemployment. However, my concerns are:

1. Security during a time when we're at war with a movement that wouldn't hesitate to create mass casualties and for whom porous borders are an invitation.

2. Dilution of the "Lockean Franchise" by admitting people from taditional societies faster than they can be assimilated, creating unknown stresses only some of which are related to employment.

I can certainly buy the argument that low wage workers in some sectors might well enhance the economy, though I'm not sure that's the case. Remove those two concerns for me however, and the others are a wash.

"I can certainly buy the argument that low wage workers in some sectors might well enhance the economy, though I'm not sure that's the case. Remove those two concerns for me however, and the others are a wash. "

A guest worker program combined with real border enforcement including a wall is the only proposal that will radically improve the first concern even a major crackdown wont stop people trying to get in illegally. If honest Mexicans can cross unmolested its far simpler to seperate the wheat from the chaff on the borders.

-A worker program is good for the second concern as well, for two reasons. First, all the hiding from the rest of society cant be good for assimilation. Second, if Mexicans are specifically coming here to work there is less need to intigrate them (any more than any other tourist or overseas student), meanwhile the ones that actually desire Americanization wont be stigmatized and in fact will be accomidated.

"The chief variables for which you'd have to control are industrial mix and sectoral unemployment. However, my concerns are:"

Perhaps, but the numbers are so huge the effect must be obviously significant if it exists enough to be worth worrying about. In other words if 100k automotive layoffs in Michigan push that state completely across the spectrum despite California's 2 million illegals, the 'illegal effect' must be an order of magnitude smaller.

For instance if you applied the Califonia level of illegals to Michigan's population you would be introducing 1.14 million new people into Michigan. If only half of them stole jobs that would be over half a million jobs lost. It doesnt seem to work that way. Otherwise we would expect California to have something like 0% unemployment.

I think there is a strong argument to be made that illegals are not stealing many jobs that Americans want, and that many, if not most of those jobs are being reclaimed via servicing those illegals and the market share they represent.

"For instance if you applied the Califonia level of illegals to Michigan's population you would be introducing 1.14 million new people into Michigan. "

I screwed this up somehow, if Michigan had 6.2% illegal that would be 5.5% higher or 539,000 new people. So halve all those figures.

A worker program is good for the second concern as well, for two reasons. First, all the hiding from the rest of society cant be good for assimilation. Second, if Mexicans are specifically coming here to work there is less need to intigrate them (any more than any other tourist or overseas student), meanwhile the ones that actually desire Americanization wont be stigmatized and in fact will be accomidated.

One of the really successful assimilation programs was the one by which my nephew-in-law obtained citizenship, by serving in the US military as a marine. I don't imagine this program is very popular with the left, however, who would see it as some sort of exploitation. My family doesn't think so though, and he was in Um Qsr after it was liberated. He's itching to go back (but his mother and his wife aren't too keen on the idea).

Mark: "By these numbers one could make the argument that less illegals leads to higher unemployment!"

I suppose you can do anything you want, but I hope you realize just how spurious an argument that would be.

The central problem with your whole train of thought is that a person demanding low wages can disemploy someone distantly removed from his own place of employment. That ought to be obvious. Low wage textile workers in China can put a guy in North Carolina out of work. Add to that the fact that illegals will as you put it 'flow to the jobs' and that jobs will potentially flow to the illegals, and I don't see how you can possibly make any direct correlation between the two numbers.

Consider the situation of a low wage pipe wielder in Houston. The low wage population in Houston may put manufacturers in Pennsylvania out of work. Experienced pipe wielders in Pennsylvania might want to migrate to the jobs in Houston, but find that route blocked by the continuing influx of new workers demanding low wages.

Construction workers without work in Alabama and Arkansas might want to work on projects in New Orleans. Instead, they find that neither they nor the local unemployed people can get work, because of wide spread hiring of construction workers from Mexico who have illegally entered the country without work permits.

Existing farm worker relationships disemploy citizens in low income minorities who might otherwise be willing to compete for $12+ an hour jobs despite the hard work and artificially depress wages below the level at which such jobs would be attractive. So its entirely possible that illegal fruit pickers in CA are increasing unemployment in South Carolina. You also aren't considering that illegal workers disproportionally compete in certain industries, and so create disproportionally high unemployment in states where the lower income bracket depends on those jobs.

The fundamental fact is that people illegally entering this country don't bring with them the kind of capital necessary to create jobs. Now, they don't necessarily take jobs, but if you suspect that the US's ability to create new jobs over a given period is finite you can't help but conclude that somewhere in the system there are people at least temporarily out of work because of the large influx of illegal immigrants.

However, that is the least of my problems with illegal immigration.

"The central problem with your whole train of thought is that a person demanding low wages can disemploy someone distantly removed from his own place of employment. That ought to be obvious. Low wage textile workers in China can put a guy in North Carolina out of work."

You have to continue the web. The guy in China is turning out a dress that costs a third of what it would cost here to make. The dress than gets sold at 60% what it would cost if it was made in the US, where it is bought by a happy consumer who otherwise wouldnt buy a dress. The cashier, clerk, manager, truck driver, longshoreman, and dock manager all participate in the exchange. The CEO turns maybe 25% higher profit which he then either builds a new store with (employing all sorts of people) or buys a new Gulf Stream (employing all sorts of people. In other words, its all a moot excersize if we cant turn out products we can afford to buy, which we cant. Global trade is simply removing friction from the system, and the most people always benefit when the system is moving as reliably as possible.

"Add to that the fact that illegals will as you put it 'flow to the jobs' and that jobs will potentially flow to the illegals, and I don't see how you can possibly make any direct correlation between the two numbers. "

Still doesnt address my larger point that one would certainly expect California, Arizona, and Texas to be suffering from much higher unemployment than they are. The bottom line is that at 4.8% there isnt much more unemployment to wring out if we wanted to. Where are all these illusory job losses predicted and why cant the statistics find them? And if you claim they are there but we cant see them I'll fall back on science, any claim that cant be tested might as well be supernatural.

"Existing farm worker relationships disemploy citizens in low income minorities who might otherwise be willing to compete for $12+ an hour jobs despite the hard work and artificially depress wages below the level at which such jobs would be attractive."

But nobody in America is willing to pay for produce produced by 12$ an hour berry pickers. We'll buy them from Chile, or not at all if that option disapears.

"You also aren't considering that illegal workers disproportionally compete in certain industries, and so create disproportionally high unemployment in states where the lower income bracket depends on those jobs."

Yes, and those industries are almost without exception very low wage, low respect jobs Americans would demand far more money to do. If you had to pay 300$ to get your lawn cut would you pay or do it yourself?

Demonstrably, Americans are finding other jobs. Now you can argue they arent great jobs (and despite what you say i see no evidence illegals are taking any kind of skilled work at significant levels, the unions wont have it), but the original jobs we are talking about werent either. If they cant force higher wages out of their current jobs what evidence is there they would be able to for the illegals' jobs which are likely to be worse?

"and I don't see how you can possibly make any direct correlation between the two numbers. "

And let me address this a little more clearly. There must be a direct correlation between the illegal immigrant level and the unemployment level. Otherwise illegals are taking zero American jobs, and this conversation is really pointless.

The question at hand is what impact does illegal impact have on the unemployment market. I'll ceed its not zero, but it certainly cant be over 4.8% either. Its also preposterous to think all of the job losses in 'non-illegal having' states have flown to 'illegal rich' states- some have, but what is a reallistic percent? Arizona isnt employing Mexican auto workers or Missippi Mexican refinery workers. Whatever effect it has, the evidence suggests it is miniscule compared to the size of the American economy.

Their are indeed many reasons to oppose illegal immigration (and i for one oppose it simply because its illegal), but i dont know that the evidence against allowing Mexicans in as guest workers is strong in this regard.

With this economy, its kinda like watching Barry Bonds bat .400 and arguing that maybe he should use a different bat. The odds of making things slightly better are a heck of a lot worse than the odds that disrupting what is working will cause bigger problems than you already have.

The nasty effect isn't outright unemployment, it's wage depression. As a whole, illegal immigrants will work for less (it's a hell of a lot more than what they were making where they came from) and under worse conditions (ditto) than Americans in general. The displaced American isn't unemployed - he's still got his wife and 2.4 kids to feed. But he's in competition with all the other displaced people, not to mention everybody else, for the jobs that are left.

This doesn't much affect you if you're in a skilled position. But if you're in an unskilled one, it sucks pretty badly. The increase in the labor pool means you're competing against more people for the number of available jobs. And most of the traditional "better" unskilled jobs, where you work hard but get paid well, are now gone (manufacturing) or not so good anymore, for the reasons stated above (construction).

And while the influx of immigrants means there are more jobs available servicing them, most of them involve talking to them, meaning you've got to be bilingual to do them. (Which, surprisingly, most people aren't!)

And on the local level, you're paying when they go to the emergency room due to a lack of medical care available, you're paying for their kids to go to school (and there are a LOT of those kids, so your school population is up 5% a year, and many of your campuses are 90%+ Spanish-speaking), and you're getting hit by drivers who have no license or insurance and paying to fix your own car.

There's your argument why the "nobody will pay for an American to do that job" falls flat. If not, well, why should that bother me? I'd rather buy foreign-grown produce than get domestic for the same price and have to pick up the social costs for the underpaid migrants elsewhere on the ledger.

Tom --

Fascinating background. But I think the main reason for Democratic Success was not the "great Latino Citizenship" but the data contained in this link:

Here

It's a PDF, but here are some highlights of net migration in/out of California from Other States:

1990-99: net outflow of under $20 Household Income: -564K; $20-40K: -486K; 40-60K: -297; $60-80K: -197K; $80+: -104K

1990-99: Married with Children: -742K; Single Parent: -270K, Married with no children: -330K, Other Family -129K, Nonfamily: -143K

1990-99: White: -1.166 MILLION; Latino: -431K; African-American: 65K (positive inflow), Asian and Other: -110K

All the available data suggest:

A big, mostly defense-related recession hit, people were no longer able to afford homes, particularly working and middle class whites with families. They moved out. Those who moved in were mostly young, single, dot-com workers in the latter part of the nineties.

Note the correlation of the nearly two million Republican deficit statewide and the 1.166 MILLION outflow of Anglos. Nearly a million parents moved out (more sensitive to law and order issues and public safety).

Interestingly, Lou Dobbs had two African-American talk show hosts as guests today. Their audience (African-American) solidly opposed Illegal Immigration and found it "insulting" because they understood they were being underpriced in the labor market. They also were not happy about identity politics and a social network that by it's nature will exclude them.

The aspirations of lower-wage workers, white, black, latino, and asian, are all threatened by increasing competition with lower-wage workers. This affects their ability to get married, have kids, buy a home. I fail to see how pushing that aside is good for Democrats. [Tammany Hall and the Irish-American version of identity politics and mass immigration did not generate these tensions because of the open frontier and then sudden industrialization. Note how the Depression closed that with Jimmy Walker being tossed for reformist Fiorella LaGuardia]

NYT here

*In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless
*in 2004 That had grown to 72%, compared to 34% of White and 19% of Hispanic dropouts.

Americans with less than HS cumulatively have 14% unemployment.
Construction Workers: Native born unemployment was 11.3%; they make up 3/5 of the construction workforce.

What we are doing is employing non-citizens from Mexico at the expense of African Americans (first and foremost); then White, then Hispanic non-HS.

Net: Citizens count the least, foreign nationals from Mexico the most. Am I the only one with a problem with this policy? Surely not.

Jim:

Whether the problem is real or imagined it certainly seems real to those affected. If you're stuck in traffic at rush hour and you look over at the nearly empty HOV lanes you're not very impressed by the argument that this reduces the average or net congestion.

But the bottom line is that we have a laboristic economy, in which people either sell their labor or die. That just isn't sustainable in the long run, not only because of foreign labor but because of automation, intelligent and expert systems, etc. Labor just isn't very productive compared to capital.

But the fact is, things will probably get a lot worse before it occurs to anyone in the political classes to actually do something about it. One of my pet peeves.

Jim,

The data Panetta and my father relied on, as confirmed in the next four general elections, was a combination of increased Hispanic turnout (both as a proportion of those potentially eligible to vote and those registered who actually vote) and the proportion of Democratic/Republican general election votes by Hispanic voters.

Basically, more eligible Hispanics registered, more of those actually voted, and the proportion of those who voted Democratic, notably party-line Democratic, increased.

The result is that in the past four general elections - 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004 - there have been an average of a million more Hispanic votes for each Democratic candidate for statewide partisan office than for Republican candidates.

I.e., any GOP candidate for California statewide partisan office has to lead the Democratic candidate by more than a million non-Hispanic votes just to have a chance of winning. And the proportion of all voters who are Hispanics is increasing.

This is how my father exploited Pete Wilson's 1994 mistakes.

Tom --

"The data Panetta and my father relied on, as confirmed in the next four general elections, was a combination of increased Hispanic turnout (both as a proportion of those potentially eligible to vote and those registered who actually vote) and the proportion of Democratic/Republican general election votes by Hispanic voters."

I don't doubt the data, but I think there's something else hidden in these numbers and the ones above I cited.

1. Unarguably true that more Latinos registered to vote, more actually voted, and more actually voted straight-line Democratic in the numbers you cite.

2. Unarguably true that also nearly a million whites moved out of the State during the same period, and about 2 million voters with children. This would tend to increase the effect of Hispanic voters since mostly Republicans white voters leave for other states.

3. The "hidden cost" of What's The Matter With Kansas? Arguably, immigration lowers wages and to the extent that ANY Reps vote against more illegal immigration you lose the vast middle Anglo and increasingly, African American voters.

As of 2000, there were according the Census Bureau about 32.8 million Hispanic Origin people in the US; around 12% of total US population.

By catering to "La Raza" you automatically signal that this group will receive (become a winner) preferences while others will get them taken away (become losers).

I just don't get, or understand, how pushing 88% of the non-Hispanic Origin to the end of the line in wages, government access, social networks (immigrant groups from various areas, often related in clan groupings, crowd out natives in Unions and other important social areas) and the like is a good for the Dem Party.

AT BEST you gain California while losing the entire middle of the country is what I'm seeing.

Jim,

I'm a Republican. My father was a Democrat. He told me how he was screwing the California GOP with malicious glee. Of course he did not appreciate my telling him how he was part of the problem with education as the chief political operative of the California Department of Education. All his wonderful ideas involved further centralization and so harmed public education. We got along.

Tell us again how state political parties have a duty beyond "Just win, baby" - the slogan of Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis.

The California GOP is dead. The Democrats provided moral support for its suicide. They didn't cause it.