Mas Latinos?

I'm a Republican. I live in the city.

And one of my (political) life's eternal frustrations is not so much conservatives' inability to reach out to blacks, latinos and asians - people like Brett Schundler show that it's doable - as it is conservatives unwillingness to try.

Case in point: The Hispanic numbers in this past election.

Commentators as diverse as Mickey Kaus, Michelle Malkin, Steve Sailer, and Ruy Teixeira , as well as a variety of pollsters have been trying to peck away at the President's numbers among hispanics last month; while the President claimed 44% of the Latino vote, various pundits are trying to force it down to 42, 41 or even 39%.

The reason? Some pundits think that to appeal to Latinos is to pander to those who want to eliminate our borders.

Rubbish. Some of the most fervent opponents of open borders and ludicrous reforms of immigration are immigrants who came here legally. And the notion that all Hispanics are beholden to the illegal immigration vote is wrong - many Hispanic families have been in America longer than (if you're of Northern, Eastern or Southern European descent) yours.

Ruffini strikes the chord I'm looking for:

I have two notes of advice for conservatives who are trying to diminish the President's gains with Hispanics. You often wonder why people think you're unreasonable anti-immigration zealots. Stuff like this is why. You're employing all manner of hairsplitting and technical minutae in an attempt to destroy any notion that Hispanics might be moving into the mainstream of American society. This isn't even a big debate over the fundamentals of amnesty or open borders -- but a technical dispute over the NEP estimates -- yet still the obsessive focus on diminishing Hispanic integration remains. This is what makes you sound unreasonable, not your macro position on immigration.

On the numbers - whether 45% or 41%:

And that's not necessarily bad news if you're a skeptic of immigration. In fact, it would be smart for you to embrace the 42-44% estimate.

Why? Because on balance, the Republican Party is still to the right of the Democrats on immigration, and yet the GOP has staged historic gains with Hispanics while their voting population has grown dramatically. Kerry proposed something much closer to amnesty for illegals -- and Hispanics weren't baited. Besides, the shift to the President had more to do with values than with immigration. The good news for immigration reformers? Hispanics aren't moved by promises of amnesty or open borders.

The GOP gained in a lot of areas in this past election. But at least in Minnesota, the only space left to explore is in the city - and until the MNGOP (as nationally) sheds its tin ear about ethnic minority voters, I'm afraid the party is hamstringing us who live here.

Posted by Mitch at December 3, 2004 04:14 AM | TrackBack