Texas was high, I thought I read 55%, which skewed results.

As to hispanics voting pubbie, CA/Arnold election, those making $60K and over broke for Arnold. That was W’s breakpoint in 2000, IIRC. Because I read it in a CA newspaper, one of the mucky-muck CA dems made that statement before Arnold’s election. They knew they had trouble there.

Don;t be pessimistic,I believe from its past record Brussels could be bought.From the people who brought you UNSCAM I give you EUSCAM.

The great success story of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent is small businesses and jobs in the NHS.The problem of unemployment is amongst asylum seekers and second and third generation muslims,many of whom do better educationally than the indiginous population and come from relatively prosperous families.Disaffection amongst the latter group has to be attributed to something other than social conditions.We never get Hindu rioters or Chinese Jihadis.It has to be rememdered that our immigrants come from all over the globe not solely from Islam.

Whilst many come to live and settle others come to work to support families at home and have no intention of staying.

There is however a significant number who come because there is a big sign at Dover saying FREE MONEY,state benefits,medicine and housing are a lure to those whose own country would let them die in the gutter.Sadly many of these have no skills to offer a modern economy and many have no intention of working,some are criminals,but whatever they are once they are in it is virtually impossible to eject them.Thus we have those with long term chronic diseases who come because treatment is free,hence we have an increase in the incidence of heterosexual aids which is entirely imported from sub-Saharan Africa.

The main problem is it is impossible to have a welfare state,health care free at the point of delivery and porous borders.

As Steve Sailer has pointed out the white vote is actually fifteen times greater than the Hispanic vote. A three per cent increase in the Hispanic vote would give Bush a mere 0.18% increase in the overall vote tally. Bush won because he increased his share of the white vote. Unfortunately because Sailer writes for a site some deem dubious his analysis often is overlooked. But if you check out his numbers and links they work out.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041110_poll.htm

On the issue of Middle Eastern immigrants I’m of the belief (though I’ve no actual data to back this up) that those with talent are more likely to move to the Anglo New World – US, Canada, Australia – than to Europe. That contributes to making their assimilation in North America easier than in Europe. However if they start to arrive here in the kinds of numbers Europe has seen then clearly the situation will change for the worse. They would become an underclass like most Mexicans who come north.

Let me clarify my terms: a “striver” in my lexicon is one who wishes to build a business, practice his profession, raise his family, in peace and with respect for the larger community. They add, immensely, to the larger society and in our case have been America’s secret economic weapon for over a century.

A “resenter” in my book is one who has little interest in building anything or contributing to the larger community, rather is mainly concerned with tearing that community down. Economics to him is entirely zero-sum. And of course others’ success is viewed as theft from his pocket.

A good example here is the contrast between the economic behavior of those Irish Catholics who emigrated to the US in previous generations and their peers who stayed behind. The former have become (acc to Tom Sowell) the wealthiest ethnic group in the US; the latter until recently were notorious for their social levelling instincts and hatred of economic success.

If the NR article is correct and the Bush Hispanic vote was really as low as 31% then John Kerry was elected President. With that low total Bush lost Florida and probably even Ohio.

We cannot play the divide and conquer game in Europe with respect to the EU. The EU dictatorship is imposed from Brussels down, not separate states up. Except for the UK the nations of Europe have already given their consent. The UK will follow next year.

– show real respect for religious minorities: banning the veil, as in France, along with yarmulkes and crucifixes is not just dumb– like treating a psych patient with surgery– but also shows a deep and abiding contempt for the faith of these children’s fathers. Compare this attitude with America’s historic tolerance of, ie real respect for the distinctiveness of, hasidim mormons catholics sikhs chaldeans muslims etc etc. Britain is somewhat better here, Germany better still. The southern Catholic countries tend to be as clueless as the French.

–provide real economic opportunities so you attract the strivers instead of the resenters among those minority groups:

Here’s where most northern European nations really fall down. They imported muslims (like poor Southern Europeans before them) as cheap industrial labor but failed to liberalize their top-heavy, state-champion economies sufficiently to give immigrant small businesses and entrepreneurs a real chance. So instead of thousands of successful small businesses growing into large ones and offering immigrants a ladder up into prosperity and a real ownership stake in the larger society, the Europeans by and large have simply added to the ranks of those on the dole. Unemployment’s tough for a native but it’s devastating for an immigrant because his main reason for being in the country at all is to find work. Inflexible European labor markets bear most of the blame here, but the Euros seem incapable of persuading their trade union aristocrats to compromise for the greater good. The price of buying off leftist trade unions is paid in the blood of the victims of the unemployed young muslim thugs.

The Germans have done better than most here, but this is largely because the Turks tend to be more secular and entrepreneurial than the maghrebins who dominate France, Belgium, Holland and Spain. Also, the GErmans, cramped as their little nation is, still have more space than the Dutch, hence more breathing room for different religious groups to develop their communities. The historical advantages of the US’s open space here are pretty obvious (see quakers mennonites mormons lutherans et al).

–and then leave them alone, ie stop state interference in their affairs. France is courting disaster here. The state cannot co-opt unemployed and resentful young muslim males through bogus and transparent ruses like a muslim “parliament.” This smacks of the fascist corporatist approach: put each group into a box, deal with them separately and give them a few carrots while suppressing any real concept of freedom and pluralism.

Note that those few Euro states with a sizable hasidic minority, like Belgium, concentrated in a trade like diamond-cutting and dealing, have done well by these particular religious minorities because my three principles are observed well here: the Antwerp population gives the hasidim real opportunities, respects them by and large, and leaves them alone.

In sum, Europe has a long long way to go, and the issues here are much deeper than shows of tolerance or political games like setting up muslim “parliaments.” Can’t really help the geographic space issue, either. I’d wager that unless and until European labor markets are liberalized, Europe’s going to be in for a very rough ride.

I agree that European self-destruction is a problem for us.

I would argue, however, that what China is about to do to us will make us wonder why we ever considered European problems to be a source of pain. And our profits and employees are increasingly going to be located in India, not Europe or even Ohio.