Wall Street Losers
Print Friendly and PDF

Two weeks ago, Steve Sailer wrote

If the Republicans lose the House but not the Senate, you can expect to read on November 9 an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Tamar Jacoby, Michael Barone, or both crowing that the loss of the House is a crushing reproach to "nativism"

We know that the news side of the Wall Street Journal has been talking about the "crucial role" of Hispanics in the election, a myth Steve debunks at length in last night's column.

But if you don't have a subscription to the WSJ, you may not have read their latest unsigned editorial blaming people with normal views on immigration for the GOP's loss. [Immigration Losers, November 10, 2006 (link may require subscription)]

People who have read it include immigration enthusiast Daniel Griswold, who approves of it, Michelle Malkin who doesn't, (she has it linked to the her comments on the murder of Adrienne Shelly, which will no doubt annoy James Taranto)and Phil Boas in the Arizona Republic's blog, who's balanced.

Remember, most of the American electorate wants immigration enforcement. That includes a great many Democrats, and almost all Republicans who aren't executives at Fortune 500 companies, or wealthy fruit farmers.

Remember, that actual base of the GOP is voters—not, as the WSJ seems to think, "nearly every business executive" who comes through their offices. They can send money, but they have very few actual votes.

Print Friendly and PDF