By Rick Oltman
December 3, 2008
Regardless of the outcome of the presidential sweepstakes that failed to address a single issue important to population reductionists and those concerned with American jobs, dwindling natural resources and infrastructure overuse, a post-election poll by Zogby and reported in the Washington Times showed a strong majority of American voters want to see our immigration and employment laws enforced. Sixty percent want to crack down on employers hiring illegal aliens and 57 percent disapproved of amnesty. This poll shows the continuing concern of the majority of Americans about these issues.
We already know what the polls found. This is not news. It is an ongoing truth about American opinion on the subject of illegal immigration, border security and amnesty.
Yet, we continue to hear the talking heads in the mainstream media declare confidently that Hispanic voters deserted John McCain and the Republican Party because of “anti-immigrant rhetoric.” These comments are the result of either perfidy or ignorance or both. There is no other explanation for this continued rant by the open borders crowd.
Let’s look at the numbers in Arizona, the leading state in trying to limit illegal immigration and enforce employment laws for the benefit American workers.
John McCain won his own Grand Canyon State with 54% of the vote, about the same amount by which Pres. Bush won in 2004. However, Proposition 202, a falsely named initiative that would have gutted Arizona’s current employment law that targets employers who hire illegal aliens, was defeated with almost 60% of the vote. What has not been emphasized at all is that 56% of Hispanic American voters also opposed it.
In 2004, when President Bush won Arizona with 54 percent of the vote, Proposition 200, on the same ballot, required proof of identity when voting or applying for benefits and won with 57% of the vote and was aimed directly at illegal aliens. Exit polls showed that Hispanic Americans supported Proposition 200 with more votes than the incumbent President.
Obama won Hispanic American majorities in the border states of CA, AZ, NM, TX and FL with 74%, 56%, 69%, 63% and 57% respectively. Why? Because of Republican “anti-immigrant rhetoric?” "This was a presidential race that tried hard to avoid the immigration issue. Had illegal immigration been an issue, and, as some pundits continually claim, Hispanic American voters were to actually make their choice based on a candidate’s support for an illegal alien amnesty, McCain would have been the sure winner. Obama’s own record on immigration policy is pretty thin, although he did state during a Democrat debate that illegal aliens should be allowed driver licenses.
However, John McCain’s support for open borders is demonstrable. Among other things he was co-author of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill in the Senate. He opposed Proposition 200 in Arizona in 2004. If such opposition could actually influence Hispanics to vote for him, McCain should have swept the Hispanic American vote in the border states, Arizona at least, but that did not happen.
There are many predictions about what the Obama Administration will do about the immigration issue. Will it be amnesty with or without real border security? Just continuing the current policy of minimal enforcement is destructive enough. Our country needs candidates and officials with the courage to agree with the majority of American citizens of all races that our borders should be secured and our jobs guaranteed for American workers.
But one does wonder what the outcome would have been if John McCain had taken the national press corps to Yuma after the Border Patrol apprehended Mexican Army soldiers with machine guns (who, according to border experts were probably escorting a drug load into our country) and stood astride the border and declared that he would secure and defend the boundaries of our country. Based on an honest analysis of recent election results, he probably would have gotten more Hispanic American votes, and more votes from every other demographic group, too.