Mark Krikorian at National Review wonders what Rand Paul is talking about with the whole “Dog ate my visa” thing.
Paul also repeated, contrary to all evidence, the fairy tale that “Maybe half, maybe 60 percent” of Hispanics are conservative.
His most ridiculous assertion, one that calls into question his seriousness on the issue, was this:
“Forty percent of those who are here of the 11 million who don’t have the proper documents. Forty percent of them came with the proper documents and then somehow lost their documentation.”
Lost? Really? You don’t have to be a policy wonk to know that 5 million illegal aliens didn’t just misplace their visas. I’m assuming Senator Paul is neither a fool nor a liar, which means he’s so blinkered by dogma that facts have to be hammered into ridiculous shapes to fit his preconceptions.
I’m not sure that I agree with Mark there. Paul appears to be cynically using a ‘fact drift’ which is a commonplace tool in this debate. He’s not saying that they have documents which would show that they have legal status, but that they had some documents and therefore they aren’t “undocumented.”
This means nothing, of course. But once PC language turned illegal aliens into undocumented aliens and then undocumented immigrants, all you have to do is find an old visa and say, “Aha, here’s a document. Therefore they can’t be undocumented.” Their documents just aren’t up to date.
It’s a childish trick, but political debate in the Obama era has reached childish levels and it becomes necessary, as Orwell said, to constantly restate the obvious.
This is why the shift from illegal to undocumented is so important. Illegal is a moral state. Undocumented is a bureaucratic one. It’s easily fixed. Add a document.
Finally, what qualifies Rand Paul to give these lectures to Republicans about winning the Latino vote? Kentucky’s Latino population doubled between 2000 and 2010, but it’s still only something like 70k to 100k voters. They didn’t even show up on the senate race exit polls. Paul lost the black vote by a huge margin, there’s no information on what, if anything, happened with the Latino vote.
Rand Paul might want to spend more time focusing on poor white voters instead of pushing amnesty. The same is true for the rest of the GOP.
Rand Paul lost the under $30,000 vote. He tied for the $30,000 to $49,000 vote. He only broke out with the above $50,000 voters. That was the same thing that happened to Romney. And unlike Romney, race couldn’t be blamed for those results. Not when Bush decisively won those same voters in Kentucky in 2004.
The Republican Party can learn to talk to poor whites or it can learn to speak Spanish. And we all know what the GOP consultant class wants to do. It wants the same social setup as Mexico for the rest of the country. It has that in common with the Democratic Party.