Will Republicans, (El Partido Estupido) Become El Partido Republicano?

With his

victory in Florida,

John McCain has become the frontrunner for the
Republican nomination. Even though McCain`s campaign was
earlier almost derailed solely for his support for the

Kennedy-Bush amnesty and only recovered when he
began to

pose as an immigration hardliner, his potential
success will certainly be used as evidence that
Republican voters are not really against amnesty. If
McCain gets the nomination, the

open borders lobby will get to see what

Hispandering does for the Republican Party.

When the late Sam Francis was in a
symposium at the American Cause entitled

"Will Mass Immigration Kill the GOP,"
 he answered, "I sure hope so."
Francis, of course, developed the term

"The Stupid Party" to

describe the

institution in which he spent most of his life. I`m
sure many VDARE.COM readers share his sentiments. But
like Francis, they also recognize that immigration will
have

dramatic effects on the American political system.

If politicians have one instinct,
it is for survival. They may not care about saving the
nation, but some may inadvertently do the right thing to
save their career. Accordingly, ideologues, business
interests, ethnic activists, and high-paid Hispanic
political and media consultants—of both parties—who wish
to make the

Republican Party run lockstep with La Raza have
continuously spread the myth that Republicans need
Hispanics to win. They also claim that Hispanics are
"natural Republicans" who will support the GOP if we
only rid the party of

mean-spirited bigots like

Tom Tancredo and

Pat Buchanan.

This tired propaganda with some new
snake oil is synthesized in Leslie Sanchez`s book Los Republicanos: Why Hispanics and Republicans Need Each Other.

Sanchez is a

blonde-haired Latino who runs a

media consulting group for the

Hispanic market. Accordingly, the book reads like a
(bad) sales pitch.

Politics aside, it is painful to
read. The book is full of cheesy personal stories and
chapter titles like "Reaganismo." There are many
glaring factual errors—to name a few, it says that the

Immigration Reform Caucus has 67 members (it has
over 100) and that

Proposition 187 was passed in 1987 (it was passed in
1994.)

Any Open Borders book is going to
have

many logical contradictions. But even the trite and
corny one-liners in Los Republicanos contradict
themselves. For example, the book opens with Ms. Sanchez
joking that it is bad stereotype to say that all Latinos
have

images of La Virgen hanging from their rear
view mirror. A few chapters later she says that these
images demonstrate their deep Catholic faith and,
accordingly,

"family values."

This is not to distract from the
dangerous and just plain wrong message of the book. As
the subtitle would suggest, Los Republicanos
focuses on both why Hispanics are necessary for the

GOP to be a viable party, and why the GOP`s message
will appeal to Hispanics.

The section on why Hispanics need
the GOP is full of the usual nonsense about Hispanic
family values and their entrepreneurial spirit. Sanchez
goes a step further make new and even more absurd,
counterfactual and even comical arguments than the
typical open borders myths.

Sanchez admits that Hispanics have
high rates of

various social pathologies. But, amazingly, she
tries to turn this into a good thing. She uses the fact
that

Hispanics drop out of  high school at

a disproportionate rate as a reason why they will
support

No Child Left Behind and vouchers! She acknowledges
that Hispanics have

high teen pregnancy and

illegitimacy rates—but then gushes about how they
are more likely to think that births should be in
wedlock.

Another liability that she sees as
an asset is the fact that there are many

Hispanic professional associations. Sanchez claims
this evidence of the rising upward mobility of Hispanic,
which will presumably make them vote Republican. A more
realistic view would show that even when Hispanics
succeed, they still isolate themselves. In any case,
these groups` main function is to lobby for

racial preferences rather than serve any
conservative ideas.

Sanchez even manages to argue that
not paying taxes will make Hispanics good Republican.
She writes: "One third of Hispanic businesses don`t
know they have to pay taxes: They actually believe they
can avoid federal taxes by

sending their money home to Mexico." And this is
good because as "more Latino business owners are
educated about the real impact of the high taxes
Democrats want them to pay, there`s no doubt they will
respond politically".

She points to a poll that shows
that 79% of Hispanic business owners think they are
overtaxed. (Presumably, at least 12% of those owners
think nothing is too much.)

The low tax philosophy doesn`t end
at marginal tax rates, Sanchez argues Hispanics will
also want to eliminate the estate tax. Currently there
is an exemption for up to two million dollars before the
estate tax kicks in. But the median net worth of

Hispanic households is less than $8,000 dollars—9%
of white households. [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=34]No
matter to Sanchez. She ignores this and the fact that
Hispanics have

failed to raise their socio-economic status at the
rates of past immigrant groups to assert that Latinos
"are starting more businesses than any other groups, and
so we will be the ones most likely to leave estates
large enough" to be taxed.

Of course, even if Hispanics are
disproportionately starting businesses (which they
aren`t), unless every fruit and taco stand owner—who may
or not be paying taxes—gets franchised by venture
capitalists, it`s unlikely that most Hispanic
"entrepreneurs" will be leaving multi million dollar
estates.

The arguments about taxes are
especially specious, because despite showing many polls
by Hispanics complaining that their taxes are too high,
she shows no evidence that they think there should be
spending cuts, or that those richer than them should get
lower taxes.

Most

"Hispanics are natural Republicans"
arguments at least limit themselves to a
few issues like abortion and education. Sanchez,
however, manages to apply it to virtually every pet
cause of the Republican Establishment. For example, she
gives a long discussion on the virtues of

missile defense without any discussion of how this
relates to Hispanic voting patterns until the last
sentence—where she merely asserts they

care about

national security.        

The rest of Sanchez` proof that
Hispanics are natural Republicans comes from their
answering generic poll questions about whether it is
better to be on

welfare or

working, whether they

pay too many taxes, or if illegal drugs are a
problem and

discipline is a problem in

schools. Of course these are answers that virtually
every American regardless of race or political
orientation would agree with.

Sanchez` case for why the
GOP needs Hispanic voters doesn`t fare much better.
Much of this section repeats the usual myths:

Prop 187 has done great damage to the Republican
Party;

Tom Tancredo and

Pat Buchanan are racists scaring off conservative
Hispanics; George Bush was elected in 2004 due to his

great inroads among Hispanic voters; the Republicans

lost in 2006 due to their xenophobic opposition to
amnesty. Again, VDARE.COM readers have seen these claims
refuted over and over again.

Yet Sanchez also manages to make
many new and outrageous assertions. For example: her
discussion of "Southern Newbies." One way to
explain away the overwhelmingly liberal voting patterns
of Hispanics is to play up the fact that they settle in
already-Democratic areas and may just vote accordingly,
rather than a result of their ethnic solidarity. Contra

Teddy Roosevelt, Sanchez proclaims "we`re all
hyphenated Americans, but we`re also

Texans,

Hoosiers,

New Yorkers,

Yankees, and

Southerners."

But even if this were true, it
wouldn`t make much of a political difference. Jews in
the South have always been more conservative than those
in New York. But because most Jews are from New York,
they

still vote overwhelmingly for the Left.

That aside, Sanchez fails to give
any reason to suggest

Hispanics in the South will vote Republican. Not
only does she fail to give any substantive information
on voting patterns, she doesn`t even give any anecdotal
stories of Mexicans drinking

sweet tea, listening to

country music, or going to

college football games and

NASCAR races. In fact, between all the fluff, her
only actual argument is that Hispanics cause urban
sprawl and the exurbs tend to be Republican.

Sanchez` case study of the New
Latino South is

Greeenville, South Carolina, which is rapidly
changing due to mass immigration. She writes that South
Carolina`s solidly Republican majority is dependent upon
the ability of the GOP to attract Hispanic voters, due
to the large black and

rising Hispanic population.

South Carolina has always had a
large black population. Since the Southern realignment,

blacks have solidly voted Democratic. Of course,
there are still more whites than blacks in the state.
And because they vote in a block, the state is
dependably Republican. Conclusion: if it were not for
Hispanic immigrants, the GOP would

have absolutely no problems in the South.     

Sanchez

touts Greenville Congressman Bob Inglis as a great
Hispanic-friendly politician. Inglis was one of the few
House Republicans to support Bush`s amnesty and gives
lectures instructing his citizens to welcome the

Hispanicization of their hometowns. Yet Sanchez
fails to explain how this helps Inglis`s political
prospects in any way. In fact, she acknowledges that he
will likely face a primary challenger due to his support
of amnesty—and that the local Hispanic press still
attacks him for not being Open Borders enough!

The picture Sanchez paints is
contradictory enough, but she leaves out a number of
other facts that bode ill for open borders politicians
in South Carolina.

Lindsey Graham has been

censured by the GOP chapter in Greenville and may
soon be in Spartanburg for his support of the

Kennedy-Bush-McCain amnesty. Greenville was the site
of the largest anti-amnesty demonstrations in the
country. Sanchez also fails to mention Inglis`s
neighboring Congressman, Gresham Barrett, who represents
an area with similar demographics, but has the

best voting record on immigration in Congress.
Instead of facing a primary challenger, Barrett is being
touted as the

next governor of South Carolina.

If Los Republicanos were
merely the self-interested logrolling of one Hispanic
media consultant, it would be like Plan 9 from Outer
Space—something so bad it is moderately amusing.
Unfortunately many of the far left, anti-American views
expressed in this book are expressed by ostensibly
conservative politicians. Thus Rep. Inglis recounts to
Sanchez how he was attacked by a politically incorrect
constituent who opposed

miscegenation and stated "This is a white
country." Inglis regales Sanchez by quoting his
black aide who said "This is Tancredo and Buchanan in
their fullness."

Similarly, Republican Congressman
Tom Cole of Oklahoma tells her that he tells his
restrictionist colleagues "I`m a member of the

Chickasaw Nation, and as far as I`m concerned,
you`re an illegal!"

John McCain, Newt Gingrich and (significantly)

Mitt Romney endorsed the book with enthusiastic
blurbs about the merits of Hispandering.

Many immigration reformers
correctly point out that large numbers of

patriotic Hispanics support immigration control. Yet
that number is always much lower than the rates of

white, or for that matter African American, voters.
It will no doubt decline when amnestied illegal aliens
become US citizens.

Support for patriotic immigration
reform is a winning strategy now. But there is a point,

if nothing is done, when all political parties will
have to accede to the Hispanic agenda. This does not
mean merely supporting open borders, but also abandoning
conservative policies across the board, because
Hispanics will reject them just as they do in their home
countries.

What really matters is not whether
the Republican Party survive mass immigration—but

whether the United States will.

If the major parties become

El Partido Republicano and

El Partido Democrático,
then the answer will be the same in both
English and Spanish: no.

Marcus Epstein [send
him mail] is the founder of the
Robert A Taft Club and the executive director of the
The American
Cause and
Team America PAC. A selection of his articles can be
seen
here. The
views he expresses are his own.