Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound
Showing posts with label Illegal Immigrants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illegal Immigrants. Show all posts

Friday, July 30, 2010

Replace the Arrogance of Power with Service

When incredibly smart and successful elitists like Cathy Areu can go on national television and say, “if they’re illegal, who cares?” in a heated panel debate with the likes of Ann Coulter and get away with it, then you finally get a real sense of how arrogant liberal leadership has become in this country. The rule of law has little influence when it comes to progressive and racial politics; the will of the people has little relevance.

And so without regard for the overwhelming demand by Arizona voters to stop a massive invasion of illegal immigrants, drug and weapons traffickers at the southern border through meaningful enforcement of law, our post racial President and Attorney General insult them instead, branding them racist and misguided, and preemptively inhibits their self determination by attacking them in court. With no loss of irony, the former Arizona Governor, now Secretary of Homeland Security exemplifies the complete failure of federal leadership through her inability to perform the basic fundamentals of office. She will not secure the homeland. How is it possible that our government could devolve to such ineffectual and patronizing leadership? Is it really true that in the absence of prioritized federal resources, the States and citizenry are not allowed to help or defend themselves? At least one judge believes so and another federal department plans to skirt the law entirely.

In a controversial ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, Arizona’s attempt to protect their citizens and enforce the rule of law was substantially put on hold. In a nutshell, Bolton says it is the Feds job to do it and by allowing the State to act would put a burden on the Federal government. There was apparently not a legal question about Federal malfeasance putting an undue burden on Arizona. On a subtler front, recent reporting of an internal memorandum at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reveals that the agency was researching ways to reduce the threat of removal for individuals present in the U.S. without authorization, and to do so without legislative input.

The federal government seems out of control in its effort to “fundamentally transform America.” It is quite adept to tax, create overwhelming debt, take over private business, write administrative rules and executive orders, and otherwise burden the citizenry with poor performance, but somehow believes that it is wrong for citizens to burden the federal government with something as basic as the rule of law. They have forgotten their roots of power and replaced it with arrogance.

This coming November, the 2010 mid term elections will be the most important election in decades. We are at a time in history when Americans will decide to either be ruled by elitists wielding the arrogance of power, or served by representative "government of the people, by the people, for the people.” I will be voting the latter. It is time to shift the pendulum of ideology back to fundamental Constitutional values.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Arizona Immigration Law

"The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States."

This is the intent of the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 as written in Section 1. How Arizona proposes to make this a reality has become a source of discontent around the United States and with leaders in other countries. The Arizona legislature wants to "discourage and deter unlawful entry and presence" in their state. They are simply asking the laws of this country are enforced and followed. Does that really make them bad?

The text of the law is pretty short and can be read by anyone who does a quick search for the law in their favorite search engine. There is one paragraph that seems to be causing all the unrest.

Article 8 Enforcement of Immigration Laws, Subsection B states "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United State, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 1373(c)."

Reasonable suspicion is a legal term meaning an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping ... a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time.

Clearly this is not a license for a law enforcement officer or state agency to question anyone based on what he looks like -- read race. In fact, when reviewing the whole bill the term "race" is used twice and it is contained in this statement: "... shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin". That passage is used in two locations within the bill.

Investigating the immigration status of someone based on specific facts or circumstances and not being based solely on race would make it hard to see where this law is racist as many people have complained.

The fallout from this law has been far reaching, but very symbolic in nature. The City of Seattle voted to boycott Arizona, but they chose to keep their contract with an Arizona company to supply the city with its cash-cow red-light cameras. Seattle showed Arizona! We won't do business with you, unless it makes us money. Take that Arizona!

The City of Los Angeles also voted to boycott Arizona. In order to not hurt their city, they have wisely chosen to ignore the fact they get energy from Arizona. So, their boycott is something like Seattle's -- a symbolic vote by an ignorant city council of feel-gooders.

Gary Pierce, a Commissioner from the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities responded to the vote of the boycott with a letter to the Los Angeles Mayor and city council. In the letter he states Los Angeles gets approximately 25% of its electricity from Arizona. He writes to the Mayor asking that they reconsider their attempt at harming Arizona's economy if the city council doesn't have the strength to follow through with its convictions. In essence if Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona, then they should also stop using Arizona's electricity.

What exactly are these cities boycotting? They are boycotting a law that specifically states that government officials must deal with people who break the law.

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Does Clint Didier Support Amnesty for Illegal Aliens?

Washington U.S. Senate candidate Clint Dider had the following exchange with Ross Reynolds on KUOW's "The Conversation" this morning:
Reynolds: Millions of people who are in this country illegally, what do you think should be done about that issue?

Friday, April 25, 2008

Racist La Raza Creates Own Border at Michigan State University

Video of La Raza, Mecha, and other pro-illegal alien groups create own border on college campus bridge.


Listen to the foul language and propaganda used by these pro-immigration groups. They stopped students crossing a bridge for their MSU ID cards to go across to class. They are not winning any people with that attitude. Those protesters remind me of those foul-mouthed students and that idiot professor who went after the College Republicans for their peaceful demonstration.
I can see these same pro-illegal groups on the WSU campus doing the same thing and WSU-CES would support them.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Huckabee Leads Nationally; Signs "No Amnesty" Immigration Pledge

A Rasmussen poll released today shows that Governor Mike Huckabee leads among Republicans nationwide with 23%. Senator John McCain is in second with 20%. Polls also show that Huckabee is now tied with McCain in South Carolina.

Meanwhile, in a move that will increase his support among conservatives, Governor Huckabee yesterday signed a "No Amnesty" pledge concerning illegal immigrants.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Real Free Trade

It all started with lead paint on Chinese made toys, on to the shortage of farm labor, and quickly degraded that I am “unpatriotic to buy foreign goods”. This discussion with my mother-in-law followed those predictable lines. “It is just terrible that we no longer make things and depend on others to do this work” she says. My banal response “The Chinese can make our cheap products, we pay them almost nothing. Buying the stuff allows us to use our money for other things we couldn’t afford if it weren’t for their cheap labor.” “We should do things the rest of the planet will pay a premium for and not assemble plastic toys for $2.00 / hr” I thought to myself, instead my stronger point “our unemployment levels are super low, where are we going to hire people?” Where, indeed?

The economic benefit for free trade between the US other nations is obvious making me free trade supporter. However, there is an area of trade that we refuse to free up.

The radical idea: let’s have free trade in labor. I’m a firm believer that we keep our borders secure and that we get to decide who and how someone enters the country or becomes a citizen. But our neighbors want to come here to work, and to do the kind of work we don’t want to do. So I say let ‘em.

Farmers historically hire ‘under-the-table’ workers at low wages. That source of labor is drying up due to our tighter borders. Tie in the possibility of a raid by immigration enforcement that could end your harvest in the middle of a 6 week season that produces ALL of your income. Farmers are in a tough spot. So government to the rescue. The H2A visa program is designed to address the seasonal requirements of agriculture. But it is so burdensome that the H2A visa amounts to a tariff on labor. Tariffs are bad, let’s get rid of them. The H2A visa requires farmers to pay a higher rate than typical for farm labor, advertise for a month for local people (in a newspaper no migrant worker would read) to do the work, then pay $2400/year to the immigration service, another $300 for each visa, $200 or so for round trip transportation, and provide onsite housing that meets federal standards. The costs are so burdensome that many farmers with labor intensive requirements have chosen to plant only an amount crop they know they have laborers for. See a typical story.

The current system is broken. "la tira" (throwing cash) pay method keeps illegal farm laborers poor and evades taxes. Likewise, for the other common method to employ illegals - through an intermediary who actually does the hiring and paying. There is plenty of evidence for troubled times for farm and other low wage jobs. California, Washington, Colorado are all experiencing tough times. Keeping labor trade restricted means we don’t get to tax those employees and hey unless they become citizens they’ll pay social security and never collect it – a good deal for me.

Free trade and illegal immigration addressed in one leap.

The entry barrier for Mexicans in particular is high, even for tourists. We need to eliminate those barriers. To do this 'work visas' need a complete overhaul that allows easy movement of labor across the borders with our neighbors. Let's keep it simple, arrive at the border, prove you have transportation back to your country of origin, we verify with your country that you are not a felon, then come on in with your 6 month work visa.

To stay in the country should be kept simple too, go to the closest immigration service, renew your visa, and go back to work. The whole solution can be managed by the current immigration system, with some additional funding to keep track of so many more visa holders. Add to that the craziness of not enforcing our current out-of-date laws would be less tempting, resulting increased collection of taxes and this solution could be much cheaper than building a fence.

I’m not suggesting a NAU (North American Union) or even a European style free movement of a Schengen arrangement. But the current system is broken and forces masses of immigrants and employers to break the law while we mostly look the other way because the labor is desperately needed. That is bad law.

Maybe with free trade in labor we could make our own cheap plastic toys.

"2 Va. counties OK immigration crackdown"

Earlier this year, I was proud of Congressman Virgil Goode, who is from my hometown of Rocky Mount, VA for standing up to the bullies of CAIR.

Today, there is story concerning another place where I used to live, Prince William County, VA, that makes me proud as well.

According to the AP:
Resolutions to deny a potentially wide range of public services to illegal immigrants have thrust two northern Virginia counties into the nation's immigration debate. The measures passed in July in Prince William and Loudoun counties join a flurry of recent efforts by local governments nationwide that believe the federal government has not done enough to stop illegal immigration.

[...]

Critics say the resolutions are a racist reaction to profound demographic changes in Prince William and Loudoun, two of the fastest-growing counties in the Washington area. Together, the counties account for 8 percent of Virginia's population, with more than 600,000 residents.

According to census estimates released this month, Prince William's Hispanic population has more than doubled since 2000, to nearly 70,000 last year. Non-Hispanic whites account for a little more than half of the population, down from about two-thirds in 2000. In Loudoun, the share of minorities increased from 20 percent to 32 percent.

Proponents blame illegal immigrants for changing the character of the region, accusing them of packing too many people into single-family homes and failing to learn English.

"It's reached a boiling point - or a boil-over point," said Supervisor John T. Stirrup, who sponsored the Prince William measure.

[...]

The resolution [in Prince William County] includes a provision instructing police to investigate the immigration status of anyone they detain if there is probable cause to believe the person is in the country illegally.

[...]

Hispanic activists are planning a weeklong boycott of all nonimmigrant, non-Hispanic businesses in Prince William County beginning Monday and a one-day general labor strike in October.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Would using microlending effectively reduce illegal immigration?

[Cross-posted from Versus the Mob]

I've been using and promoting Kiva.org for some time, here and elsewhere. I've posted an article on Helium.com that I've entitled, "Would using microlending effectively reduce illegal immigration?," which explains the motivation and method behind my particular bit of lending through that fine organization. Here is a piece of it:
"I had been making microloans through Kiva for some time when the idea occurred to me that this could be a constructive response to our national border security crises. I do not think it unreasonable to assert that the majority of us who want to see our borders enforced generally do not begrudge others of their hard earned money and their desire to improve their own lives; we are simply offended by the disregard some hold for the laws we choose for ourselves as a sovereign nation and people. Therefore, I suspect that there are many like me who will recognize the constructive, long-term solution to the pressure on our borders that microlending could represent: while we ought to demand that our national sovereignty be respected by both foreign individuals and governments, let us not deny that lack of opportunity is what drives many to our shores and not simply a desire to break our laws, and then let us as individuals seek to help foreign entrepreneurs by aiding the development of their own domestic opportunities through providing capital for new business there, all the while refusing to excuse unlawful behavior here."

Friday, May 25, 2007

"Union betrays its own members"

Dynamite column by Froma Harrop today:
The American working class has few friends, and that sad situation is never more apparent than when the issue is immigration. The fat cats want unlimited supplies of cheap labor. It makes sense. That a giant union purportedly serving low-skilled workers would further that end does not.

The Service Employees International Union is backing a proposal to greatly expand the supply of low-cost labor pouring into the United States. The reason why is close to crazy.

Under the Senate immigration compromise, at least 400,000 two-year visas would be issued a year to unskilled foreigners. The visas could be renewed two times, but to ensure that the guest labor is truly temporary, workers would have to leave the country for a year between each stint. The SEIU apparently has a problem with the part about the workers being temporary.

First off, any self-respecting union would blow its top at the very suggestion of a massive new guest-worker program. The AFL-CIO adamantly opposes the idea. Its president, John Sweeney, complains that the program gives employers "a ready pool of labor they can exploit to drive down wages, benefits, health and safety protections, and other workplace standards."

There are temporary jobs – for example, harvesting crops. But these new visas are designed to provide cut-rate labor to fill permanent positions in such businesses as meat processing, restaurants and motels.

The SEIU covers many of the very people who take these jobs. It seems curious that the union does not mind adding another half million workers a year to compete with its own members. Its Web site contends that America has a shortage of 10 million workers and that "nearly half of all jobs created from now until 2012 will be held by workers with a high school diploma or less."

Duh – but don't worker shortages cause wages to rise? The wages of "workers with a high school diploma or less" have been crashing through the floor. Or hasn't the SEIU noticed that its contract "victories" are not that fabulous?

It's hard to believe that the SEIU's leaders are dumb. Rather, they ignore the law of supply and demand to cover another agenda. Thus, one can't be sure whether the SEIU aspires to be a union representing workers or an arm of the National Council of La Raza, a group that claims to further the interests of Hispanics – and does a lousy job of it.

Democrats who think they can get away with throwing blue-collar America to the wolves in return for new immigrants' votes should think again. Many Latinos who are native-born or legal immigrants – however sympathetic to fellow Hispanics who want to come here – do understand how the labor market has been rigged against them. The open border is why median wages are higher in Alabama than they are in Texas.

And there are other low-income groups who fancy their interests matter. T. William Fair, head of the Miami Urban League, appears in ads calling amnesty for illegal workers "a slap in the face to black Americans" and "an economic disaster." Some predict a new coalition of working-class blacks, whites and not a few Latinos questioning certain Democrats' loyalty to their cause. (Cheap-labor Republicans are already on notice.)

Controlled immigration is a good thing, and a little wage competition is an acceptable price for bringing new blood and energy into the country. But the numbers really do matter. If some unions and Democrats choose to deny the economic realities, they should at least be open about their motives. It would be highly risky to assume that everyone else is stupid.
The SEIU, as you may or may not know, is the force behind Wal-Mart Watch. Wal-Mart watch has had the temerity to attack Wal-Mart over undocumented workers and outsourcing American jobs.

This hypocrisy proves that union thugs are only interested in more dues, not the workers, to maintain their lavish lifestyles and buy power and inlfuence in D.C.

Technorati Tags:

Monday, May 14, 2007

It is Summer, and I have been in hiding...

Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register. I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but

she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and cried.




Why do I tell you this?



----------------


Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:



----------------


1. Teaching Math In 1950

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?



----------------


2. Teaching Math In 1960

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?



----------------


3. Teaching Math In 1970

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?



----------------


4. Teaching Math In 1980

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.




----------------


5. Teaching Math In 1990

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? ( There are no wrong answers )




----------------


6. Teaching Math In 2006 ...




Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

Thursday, May 03, 2007

GOP candidates' views on immigration

In advance of this afternoon's debate, I am posting this AP story on how each of the Republican presidential candidates stand on the immigration issue:
The stands of these 2008 Republican presidential candidates on immigration.

---

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas

Where he stands:

Voted for 2006 bill offering legal status to illegal immigrants subject to conditions, including English proficiency and payment of back taxes and fines. Voted for border fence.

What he's said: "I think you need the comprehensive reform, and you need enforcement, and you need to make the system simpler and allow more people in legally, to get people into a legal instead of an illegal system." - Interview with The Associated Press, April 12.

---

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Where he stands:

Open to conferring legal status if proficiency in English is among conditions.

What he's said:

"They would have to have tamper-resistant cards. They would have to be identified. We'd have to be sure they are people who have a lawful background.

"Then we'd be able to collect taxes from them, so they wouldn't be using our services without paying for them. And then that database could be used for, ultimately, if you want to deal with the people that are already here.

"But they should never be put ahead of the people who are here already. Anybody that gets in to a database like that should have to be at the end of the line rather than at the front of the line. They should have to pay penalties." - FlashReport political news Web site, March 26.

---

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee

Where he stands:

Favors allowing illegal aliens in the country to apply for legal status if they pay penalties, get guest worker permits, register with authorities and aren't allowed to jump in line ahead of other applicants. As governor, opposed banning state services for illegal immigrants.

What he's said:

"There must be consequences for illegal actions for violation of our rule of law. I propose that such individuals should be required to register with state and federal authorities, receive guest worker permits, pay financial penalties and be given the choice of deportation or undertaking the process of lawful citizenship that does not allow them to cut in front of the line." - Statement issued by campaign April 10.

---

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California

Where he stands:

Favors deporting the millions of illegal aliens. A sponsor of legislation authorizing construction of Mexico border fence.

What he's said:

"When you discover an effective deterrent to crime, you use it. I know fencing helps secure our nation's borders because criminal activity in every statistical category has been eliminated or decreased since we built the border fence in San Diego County." - Statement on campaign Web site.

---

Sen. John McCain of Arizona

Where he stands:

Sponsored 2006 bill allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S., work and apply to become legal residents after learning English, paying fines and back taxes and clearing a background check.

What he's said:

"While strengthening border security is an essential component of national security, it must also be accompanied by immigration reforms. We have seen time and again that as long as there are jobs available in this country for people who live in poverty and hopelessness in other countries, those people will risk their lives to cross our borders - no matter how formidable the barriers - and most will be successful." - Press release issued March 30, 2006.

---

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

Where he stands:

Says he opposes McCain's immigration bill, although he called it reasonable in 2005. Supports building a border fence with Mexico and stationing National Guard troops there. Favors penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

As governor, reached an agreement with Washington allowing state troopers to enforce federal immigration law, including arresting illegal immigrants and seeking their deportation.

What he's said:

"Another aspect of American sovereignty is the security of our borders. The current system is a virtual concrete wall against those who have skill and education, but it's a wide-open walk across the border for those that have neither." - Remarks at Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, March 2.

---

Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado

Where he stands:

Opposes legal status for illegal immigrants. Doesn't favor mass deportation; says illegal immigrants will "self-deport" if businesses are penalized for hiring them and jobs are unavailable. Favors deep cut in legal immigration.

What he's said:

"When people say things like, 'Well, you can't just deport 12 million to 20 million (people),' I say, 'Stop there. Yes, you can.'

"It is a huge undertaking, but yes, you can do that. The good thing is, we don't have to. Millions and millions will return home, if the thing for which they came is not available. If you cannot get a job or social service benefits here, what do you do?" - Interview with AP, April 13.

---

Former Wisconsin Gov. and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson

Where he stands:

Says people in the U.S. illegally should be deported and should have to wait at the end of the line behind people seeking to enter the U.S. or become citizens legally.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Sanctuary Cities

Here's an addition to Scotty's earlier post about an illegal alien killing the UW student.

In Virginia Beach, VA, an illegal alien with 2-prior drunk driving convictions has been charged with manslaughter in an accident that killed two high school girls, aged 16 and 17.

The connection with Seattle is that both Seattle and Virginia Beach are so called "sanctuary cities." In these cities, ordinances have been passed that prevent law enforcement officials from reporting illegal immigrants. In the Virginia Beach case, it is likely the man accused of killing the two young girls would have been apprehended by the INS after any of the four or so times he was in police custody previously had his illegal status been reported.

And this is a quote from the Seattle PI story on UW student Rebecca Griego's alleged murderer (who is white and English, so no talk of "racism" please):
Seattle police arrested Rowan for drunken driving June 30, but officers apparently didn't know he was in the country illegally.

City law forbids Seattle police from inquiring about immigration status, unless the officer has a reasonable suspicion that person is here illegally.
The article mentions that INS had been looking for this individual for many years. A tip from the Seattle police to the INS in this case would have prevented the murder of Griego.

How can we not say we don't need immigration reform in cases like these? Police routinely do a check for wants and warrants with every "contact" they make with an individual. Isn't being an illegal alien the same as having a de facto felony warant out for your arrest? It's hardly the same as asking someone their sexual orientation or religion.

Leftist Paradox: How to Cause a Liberal to Short-Circuit

This story briefly appeared today on CNN.com, then quickly disappeared. Fortunately, it can still be found with a quick search on Google news:

"Census: Immigrants Help Big Cities Grow as Native-Born Americans Move to Suburbs

WASHINGTON — Without immigrants pouring into the nation's big metro areas, places such as New York, Los Angeles and Boston would be shrinking as native-born Americans move farther out.

Many smaller areas, including Battle Creek, Mich., Ames, Iowa, and Corvallis, Ore., would shrink as well, according to population estimates to be released Thursday by the Census Bureau."
This is great!

Leftist: "Open borders, now! Human beings are not illegal!"

Reasonable person: "But illegal immigration is causing our cities to grow and expanding sprawl."

Leftist "...sprawl is bad! Save the earth!"

Reasonable person: "Ok, so we'll close the border and kick the illegals out to save the earth."

Leftist: "Yes! No! Uhhh.. there's no illegal humans, uh... sprawl... eerrrr... *fizzlepopsmoke*"

Illegal Kills Husky

The man who killed Rebecca Griego at the University of Washington before taking his own life Monday had been living in the United States illegally for more than 10 years, immigration officials said Wednesday.

Congratulations to everyone who wants people to come here illegally!

Friday, March 30, 2007

Immigration Reform: Encouraging Signs

[Cross posted from Versus the Mob]

The news out of D.C. this morning is that the White House has been at work on an immigration reform bill that does not equate to a free pass for some 11 to 12 million law breakers.

The first story I found on this was posted to CNN.com and can be read in full here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/30/immigration.ap/

The key feature of the proposal that impresses me is that for an illegal to receive permanent residency, he or she must first return to their country of origin, apply to enter legally, and pay a $10,000 fine.

Otherwise, an illegal can apply for one of these so-called "plan Z" visas and legally work here for three years at a time, paying $3,500 to renew the visa at the end of each three year period. This will also have the effect of putting illegals on the radar as far as employment goes, which will likely put an end to their appeal as cheap labor in many industries.

But what I really like about this plan is that it does not potentially create 12 million voters overnight, the kind of voters whom leftists could easily buy with promises of lavish government benefits.