Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
The view expressed in the article you posted above is the conventional wisdom among political scientists across the political spectrum, but at the risk of seeming to defend the positions that have been expressed in this thread I would like to take exception with part of its premise.
The calculus is about electoral success, indeed electoral viability altogether. Those in this thread who agree with the Arizona law, and who have gone further to promote even more direct action against immigrants who are in this country without documentation, should be assumed to be expressing their principled position without regard for whether they are "popular" as measured at the ballot box, either directly in the form of referenda or indirectly in the form of the success of this or that candidate.
I find the views expressed here to be reactionary, in the classical definition of that word in political science, and a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless, I salute those who are willing to express their views with such passion and vigor. The reality of a changing world (not deliberate demographic reengineering, as one poster has suggested) will relegate them to permanent minority status soon enough.
|
The above is a very erudite comment on the article I posted.
Whether the article proves to be correct will depend on a lot of things.
First, the dynamic between the legal immigrants who can vote and the illegal immigrants who cant. Its possible considerable numbers of legals may support clamping down on illegals, after all they compete for jobs. Second the performance of the Obama administration. If Obama cannot articulate a positive solution and implement it, legals will not have a lot of motivation to vote Democratic. Third, I think legals will be just as outraged as the rest of us if Obama provides amnesty to the illegals.