I usually don’t do posts like this because I think it’s a waste of time pointing out a person’s inconsistent statements if their following is exponentially larger than yours and if that person would never consider statistics or facts.
The 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is a 501(c)3 charity hosted annually by the American Conservative Union Foundation.
This year, as the party tries to regain ground lost from the 2012 election, the party has actually held on tighter to their core beliefs while drawing from the same minds that more than likely lost them last election.
Who doesn’t still remember this?
A familiar face at this year’s CPAC was conservative columnist and New York Times best-selling author Ann Coulter.
There’s not really much that needs to be explained about Coulter’s speech. Not only is her speech filled with such vitriol toward minorities and the most vulnerable among us, but her speech is shallow and hardly based in truth.
But Coulter deserves credit where it’s due. She knows what makes many of us “tick.” She understands innate human desires and is therefore able to take advantage of it for her own benefit.
Unsurprisingly, Coulter doesn’t care about the human consequence of her beliefs. Our beliefs are important in defining our lives because they eventually turn into actions. What we believe and what is engrained into our culture inevitably manifests as what is “real” to us.
Coulter’s words are insensitive at best.
At the 11:24 mark of her speech, Coulter says,
“If amnesty goes through, America becomes California and no Republican will ever win a national election.”
The thing about this statement is that there are valid arguments against amnesty that Coulter could have made (like putting their concerns before legal immigrants, the initial cost to taxpayers to house them through building communities, etc.), but her reason for why we should continue to assist in ruining young Latinos’ lives is because the Republican Party needs saving.
Coulter is not against amnesty because she feels it might save the country or because it’s the right thing to do, but because she only cares about “winning.”
Coulter even makes note of this win-at-all-costs attitude at the 6:37 mark when she says,
“Show me one example in the last ten years of the Democrats giving up a winnable seat — no that hasn’t happened. Passion is great, but in politics, remember, scoring is all that counts.”
Coulter then goes on to say the only state that has given the Republican Party Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, California, will never elect a Republican again if amnesty occurs.
I want to know why Coulter is defending a president in Nixon, but that might take some time.
Anyway, California ia a big state. Is Coulter saying the reason California produces some of the more prominent liberal candidates is because of the small percentage of illegal immigrants? In a slick way, Coulter links amnesty of illegal immigrants to the woes of the Republican Party.
The math just doesn’t add up if you say that California is liberal because of illegal immigrants (who the majority of are Mexican). Yes, California is more progressive, but it is only so at the state and federal level. If you call California a liberal state, you have to include the voting preferences of the vast majority of Latinos who are not just Mexican. (By the way, the AP Stylebook refers to Latinos as being from Central America, South America and the Gulf.
The fact of the matter is by 2014, California’s population will be predominately Latino. In this political environment, it’s important for political leaders to dilineate Latinos in general from illegal immigrants, which happen to be Latino. Just like the purpose of black appreciation holidays, it’s past time to parade Latino accomplishments and contributions to the American population. More importantly, it should be the people who educate themselves on this subject.
Illegal immigrants only represent 6.8% of California’s population, however California’s Latino population is pretty much a majority of the state’s population. Why not ask why the majority of legal Latinos in California back more progressive issues?
Wrapping this point up, Coulter’s statement is false on yet another level because locally, California is not even that liberal of a state. Take a look at the counties that voted red and blue during the 2012 election. Outside of the major metropolitan and coastal areas, much of California voted Republican.
Coulter not only trivializes the immigration debate, but creates an immediate negative reaction between frustrated Americans, illegal immigrants and Latinos.
“The falloff in the stock of unauthorized immigrants has been driven mainly by a decrease in the number of new immigrants from Mexico, the single largest source of U.S. migrants. As the Pew Hispanic Center reported earlier this year, net immigration from Mexico to the United States has stopped and possibly reversed through 2010. At its peak in 2000, about 770,000 immigrants arrived annually from Mexico; the majority arrived illegally. By 2010, the inflow had dropped to about 140,000—a majority of whom arrived as legal immigrants, according to Pew Hispanic Center estimates.”
Even though the amount of illegal immigrants in 2007 was a legitimate problem, that problem is no longer a major concern as Cohn and Passel allude. Amnesty would legalize 11 million illegal immigrants out of America’s 315 million residents, which is .035% of the total population. But Coulter thinks this would spell doom for the Republican Party?
These statements from Coulter encompass why the party is struggling: it’s only about winning to its leaders, which makes it more transparent that they are only about keeping power and not representing the people, which is what politics should be about.
People want to see a difference and experience a society that is continually evolving. People don’t want what to hold on to the burdens of ignorance from previous generations, but that is what the establishment of both parties continue to push because change is a threat to their reign.
Coulter represents the establishment in every sense.
Moving away a bit from amnesty, but staying on the topic of legal and illegal immigrants, at the 18:08 mark Coulter says,
“Teddy Kennedy specifically designed his Immigration Act of 1965 to change America demographically without checking with the American people. It’s virtually impossible to immigrate here from Europe now. About 80% of our immigrants for the last 30 years have come from the third world. About 60% of them go on welfare — much higher percentage than native-born Americans. This is so Democrats get themselves more voters. We have a more dependent society, we have people who want welfare and we cannot get the votes of a dependent society without changing our principles.”
According to Coulter, there was a conspiracy led by Ted Kennedy to legislate amnesty to Asians and Latino while depressing European immigration numbers in order to drastically change the demographic of the country (without the “country’s” permission).
Does that statement even need to be dissected? Yes actually, it does.
Coulter continues to degrade illegal immigrants (and Latinos, remember she has lumped them together by saying “illegal immigration is why California is so liberal” when we know the state comprises various backgrounds of Latinos that still vote more progressive) by saying they vote Democratic because most of the ones who come here vote in favor of “entitlement programs” due to an independence deficiency.
Again, California’s illegal immigration population comprises 6.8% of the total population (37,210,000), but 10% of the labor force.
So let’s break that down for a minute.
Illegal immigrants represent a higher percentage within the workforce than they do as a percentage within the total population. For those who might not understand percentages, this means these are some hard-working immigrants.
Coulter has successfully created a cognitive link between illegal immigrants and Latinos to why the Republican Party is struggling with minority demographics. Coulter is basically blaming illegal immigrants for the fall of the Republican Party and the American economy all while trying making us favor white European immigration over brown. Here, Coulter plays the “us vs. them” card well, pitting native-born Americans against Latino immigrants and the vulnerable children of illegal immigrants. But people like Coulter still wonder why Latinos, blacks and young people don’t agree with their stances.
Coulter is riling up racial insecurities by telling white conservative they should be afraid of “the other.” Why does Coulter point out that there is a sinister plot to limit European immigrant numbers while inferring America doesn’t enforce the rules when it comes to Mexicans and Latinos? Talk like this is how race riots and conflicts spark. Blaming the poor and minorities for the economic woes of white and black Americans is not a smart move by Coulter.
Not only that, but have we forgotten why Mexicans are fleeing their country? Does U.S. government and bank laundering of Mexican cartel money have something to do with the rise of gangs and Mexican violence?
So let me get this straight, we are a country whom ruins the lives of people who come to American to live a better life (and unfortunately many do it illegally due to their dire situation that America has contributed to, but that’s a different conversation) and while literally doing our shitty jobs we demonize them, blame them for our poor institutional decisions, label them as criminals and savages and stereotype the whole Latino population with a small percentage of illegal immigrants?
Is this really the state of our Republic?