EckerNet.Com

If you’ve read my site for any length of period, you’ll know I’m not a real big fan of columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. Mostly because, we have a difference of opinion on a pretty substantial issue. That issue is facts. I think they are important. He apparently doesn’t think so. We’ve seen examples of that over and over. And now we will again, as he publishes his lastest misinformation/propaganda piece.

He attempts to raise panic at the oh-so-certain Hispanic storm, in which Hispanics every where will rise up and vote in such numbers as to make us all subservient to their will. Nevermind that this has failed to happen over and over. Nevermind that even after the huge immigration marches this summer, voter registration amongst Hispanics was basically flat. Yet, according to Navarette, we are living in the “Century of the Hispanic”.

Of course, central to Navarette’s point is that we should all fear this coming titlewave and in Kos-like demeanor he warns all Republicans to be wary of alienating Hispanics. As proof of this he cites the 2006 elections.

In the last election, Hispanics lit into the Republican Party like a swarm of 7-year-olds tearing into a pinata.

Nearly 7 out of 10 Hispanic voters shunned the GOP and tossed their support across the aisle. Democrats earned 69 percent of the Hispanic vote, compared with 30 percent for the GOP.

Wow…pretty damning right? I mean certainly that’s significant and politicians everywhere should take heed. Well that would be a correct assessment alright…..if it was new news.

What he fails to mention is that 7 out of 10 Hispanic voters have almost always voted against the GOP (with the exception of 2004) and a majority of Hispanics have NEVER voted for the GOP .

For those of you unwilling to deal with the NYT link, here are the percentages of Hispanics voting for the GOP in past elections.

1982 – 25%
1984 – 31%
1986 – 25%
1988 – 24%
1990 – 28%
1992 – 28%
1994 – 39%
1996 – 27%
1998 – 37%
2000 – 35%
2002 – 38%
2004 – 44%
2006 – 30%

Given the historical context does 2006 really look that out of place?? Does it really look like Hispanics were making a statement? Does it appear as if the GOP lost one of it’s key voting blocks?

No, if you look at the facts, Navarette’s central argument is ludicrous. But then again we’ve all grown used to that from his writing.

It\’s not uncommon for Navarrette to put quite a spin on reality in his columns on immigration, but sometimes the density reaches gravitational proportions. In an article partly consisting of condemnation towards the utter lack of immigration enforcement on employers (with which I agree), there is this gem

The worry used to be that illegal immigrants were stealing welfare. Then it was jobs. Now, we\’re told, they\’re stealing people\’s identities.

[…]

Why spin this as a crackdown on identity theft? That has a sinister ring to it, as if illegal immigrants were using stolen credit cards and withdrawing money from ATMs. More than likely, the extent of it was that people were using Social Security numbers that didn\’t belong to them so they could work at dirty jobs that Americans wouldn\’t do — just as they have for generations, before the phrase \”identity theft\” entered the national lexicon.

First of all, it\’s all three. Stolen welfare, jobs and identity. Reality hasn\’t changed. You\’ve just been spinning different parts of it…which leads me to your next paragraph.

Why spin this as identity theft. Well probably because IT IS. People using SS numbers that don\’t belong to them IS identity theft. Just because they aren\’t raiding ATMs doesn\’t mean the victims of the identity theft aren\’t being harmed. Imagine the IRS showing up at your door telling you owe more in taxes because according to records, you\’ve also been working at a meat-packing plant in Texas

A woman claiming to be Theresa Sanchez provided Swift with a Social Security card and Colorado I.D. on April 8, 2005. The FTC shows Sanchez actually lives in Texas and filed a complaint after she got a letter from the IRS. The letter said the agency was holding her $5,400 refund because she had failed to report $120,000 in wages since 1996. Sanchez told ICE she had never lived in Colorado. The FTC said someone used her information for jobs, college and to receive unemployment benefits.

Suddenly simply raiding an ATM doesn\’t sound as bad does it??

Oh and jobs that Americans won\’t do?? Cut the bullshit Navarette, you\’re not that smooth. Illegal immigrants don\’t count for a majority of any industry with which they are usually associated except prison inmates. And in that field they appear to be especially well-skilled, one only has to take a glance at the FBI\’s Ten Most Wanted List or any of their Featured Fugitives Lists for that.

Try again Navarette…again.

Came across a column by Ruben Navarrette Jr. today on the latest immigration moves in Congress. Navarrette, while he could be considered a conservative by most measures, is well known for his rather \”relaxed\” view on enforcing our immigration laws. He doesn\’t disappoint in his latest column.

On one hand he quite correctly pinpoints the reason for the latest immigration moves in Congress. Purely political. Republicans threw something together at the last minute in hopes of salvaging an image they hope will allow them to survive this latest political firestorm they\’ve managed to ignore for awhile now. In that I wholeheartedly agree with him. Yet somehow he manages to get virtually everything else wrong.

First, as any border patrol agent will tell you, there\’s no fence that can keep out someone who is desperate to feed his family and who\’s willing to go around, go over, or go under.

Welcome to Navarrette\’s School for Political Debate. Lesson One : Building a Strawman. First, take a ridiculous argument and claim that is what your opponent really believes. Second, blow it down and demonstrate how ridiculous it is. Third, pretend this means you have defeated your opponent.

The only people I\’ve heard claim that a fence will stop everyone is the people arguing against a fence. It won\’t, that is well known, but that\’s not the point. The point is that in conjunction with out methods it is amazingly effective. I present to the court of public opinion, Exhibit A : Israel.

The fence is an obstacle. Obstacles…well they obstruct. They are most effective in urban areas. Normally illegals can come across the border and just disappear into the urban jungle. A fence makes it more difficult and it slows them down, which allows Border Patrol to get there to stop them. In addition, it also forces many to go around the fence….go around to areas that are more rural where illegals are easier to spot and easier to round up.

Basically, a fence is a tool. It helps the Border Patrol do their job, but it does not, and was never intended to do it for them. Continuing to claim that people think this is the cause only serves to show the weakness of Navarrette\’s viewpoint.

Next, every time we crack down on the border, it enhances the bottom line for these multimillion-dollar smuggling outfits. Whereas it used to cost about $500 to cross the border, now the price is closer to $3,000. If we build more walls, the smugglers will raise prices again. That\’s bad. It creates an incentive for smugglers to stay in business since business is so good.

By this same rationale, we should stop enforcing drug laws when the price of crack reaches a certain point. Or we should stop arresting people for murder, when the prices of a hitman gets too high.

The prices are higher because the job is harder. It\’s called supply and demand, you might have heard of that before. The demand is still there, but the supply is down because it\’s become harder to cross. Don\’t try to pretend you have an economical argument for illegal immigration. If you want to start down this road, let\’s also discuss the low wages for labor in the border states.

Lastly, we\’ve built fences before, and it only resulted in more illegal immigration. It used to be that one member of a family would go north — a father, son or brother — and he\’d work and go back to Mexico for Christmas or Mother\’s Day.

Each time he returned home, there was the chance he\’d stay. Now, it\’s too difficult and expensive to cross, so the workers no longer go back. Instead, they\’re paying smugglers to bring their families to join them in the United States.

Once again, why are you afraid of us doing something that is working? It\’s become difficult and expensive for criminals to break the law. That is a good thing!

If as you say entering the US is becoming more difficult, then good. We\’re on the right path. Hopefully eventually the father won\’t even be able to get into the US. And if he does, we\’ll be able to track down him and his family and deport them. Feature, not a bug.

The smart thing is to stop the magnet that draws illegal immigrants here: Jobs, jobs, jobs provided by U.S. employers.

And yet, nowhere in the GOP\’s 10-point enforcement plan do you find any mention of employer sanctions.

I don\’t suppose that has anything to do with the fact that the Republican Party is the party of business, and, more and more in America, businesses depend on illegal immigrant labor.

Heh! Someone found their ticket for the clue train. Finally. I was getting lonely.

You\’re right. We do have to take away the carrot, rather than just lengthen the stick. You\’re right that employer sanctions also need to be taken seriously. Ideally I\’d like to see them in this bill. However, you should know damn well why it is not. After all you came up with the reason just a few paragraphs ago.

[ Cue Jeopardy Music ]

Ohhhh, time is up. That\’s right, Ruben–You lost. And let me tell you what you didn\’t win: a twenty colume set of the Encyclopedia International, a case of Turtle Wax, and a year\’s supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat. But that\’s not all. You also made yourself look like a jerk in front of millions of people. You brought shame and disgrace to your family name for generations to come. You don\’t get to come back tomorrow. You don\’t even get a lousy copy of our home game. *

Sorry, Ruben but the answer was politics. This bill is a political bill, nothing more. Few people behind this bill are really guided by a sense of right or actually wanting to protect our borders. They want to score political points. So they\’ve latched onto the few points that everyone agrees with. Not everyone agrees with employer sanctions, so that\’s political poison right before an election.

Say, maybe those Congressional Republicans aren\’t so dumb after all. They know a thing or two about survival. Now if they could only brush up on the requirements of leadership.

See, there you got it! You\’re right, this isn\’t leadership. This is politics, why would you look for leadership from politicians you silly fool?

* Shamelessly stolen borrowed from \”Weird Al\” Yankovic.