Buried lede: Poll shows more Latinos than whites oppose illegal immigration

Democrats are all about throwing scraps to their political base.

They throw 'abortion' to women voters as if they were all one bloc with solely this concern, and 'amnesty' or open borders to Latinos, as if they were all a single bloc, too. 

At election time, they come out with their offerings and tick their group boxes -- women, Latinos, what have you.

Once they've done that, they dust their hands off, and then go back to lining their cronies' pockets. For Democrats, it's that simple.

But what happens if they ... make a mistake? Instead of throwing alfafa at the voters they treat like barnyard animals, they throw ... glass shards?

That seems to be what's happening in this buried lede in this Los Angeles Times op-ed by far-left pro-open-borders columnist Gustavo Arellano:

In a 2019 Public Policy Institute of California survey, 75% of Latinos thought illegal border crossings, at a time of much-publicized migrant caravans, were either a “crisis” or a “serious problem” — more than the 70% of whites who felt the same way.

And the shift continues. A December survey by UnidosUS, formerly known as National Council of La Raza, of more than 3,000 Latinos in eight states showed that California Latinos were more open to “increasing border security” than Latinos in Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina. We tied with Florida for last place in wanting the government to provide a path to citizenship for so-called Dreamers. Of all the states, we least wanted to increase legal immigration or allow an amnesty for undocumented immigrants. 

It's not just that Latinos are against illegal immigration -- they are against it more than whites -- which would include the sort of suburban whites who don't see the impact of illegal immigration on their communities, but are all in on extending citizenship rights to foreigners since the cost to them seems like nothing and they want to imagine that they're "decent" people.

Latinos, though, probably would see that impact. They would see increased crime, increased political corruption including electoral shenanigans such as "politiqueros" coming to harvest their ballots, overcrowded schools and hospitals, and illegal migrants getting a lot of free stuff that they don't get. They'd see their wages undercut by people who will work for less. They'd have gone through the many and expensive legal hoops to achieve legal green cards and U.S. citizenship, from waiting in line to paying huge fees and dealing with bureaucratic lost paperwork, while watching illegals say 'asylum' and get into the U.S. instantly, paying nothing at all. They'd fill out extensive paperwork to qualify for college admission and aid and watch illegal skip that entire bureaucratic morass and get their education in some states for free. They'd file taxes and argue with the IRS on their small business deductions, while illegals pay no taxes at all.

Of course they'd be against this. They would have seen its impact up close, and it would have reminded them just a little too much of the places they moved away from.

What's more, as Arellano concedes, the trend is continuing. Recent polls here, here, here, here, and here show an increasing willingness of Latinos to vote for Republicans, including President Trump. So you can bet those numbers are even higher than 75% at this point.

In California, we are increasingly seeing Latino candidates for office who are up-front about this two-tier system going on, laying it out that they're against amnesty for illegals. Such as this candidate:

Notice how she doesn't say she's Latino, which some might do, given the English last name. She already knows that Latinos are going to know this, as English last names are more common over there than most whites here expect. She just tells her story in a slightly Mexican accent which will be recognizable, about clearly something that bad which happened in Mexico which she knows her targeted voter base will recognize . She's hard and unafraid of controversy in stating 'no amnesty' for illegals.

She's a Latina candidate and knows her audience well -- and is likely to draw a lot of votes -- in California. 

Arellano, by contrast, who's been part of the establishment for years, flounders around on this matter, assuring himself that Latinos will always vote Democrat even with this incoming data, not being able to put his finger on why this is happening at all. This is despite his stating that his own relatives were in on this political shift, which really baffles him. Maybe he should ask them.

Latinos are already the biggest opponents of illegal immigration and he doesn't get this. Like any Democrat, he's been in the camp of promoting illegal immigration as a means of winning the Latino vote for Democrats -- and stands there stupefied that this is the opposite of what they want.

Latinos are usually newer arrivals, and on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. They bear the brunt of illegal immigration and oppose it even more than whites do. That's a story -- and since he couldn't quite put his finger on the 'why' of this, he had to bury the lede.

Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License

 

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com