In last Sunday's Appeal column I argued against bilingual ballots on grounds that all American voters should have at least a working knowledge of the English language in accordance with U.S. immigration and naturalization requirements. I want to expand upon that theme today by exploring Hispanic voting patterns in Northern Nevada and elsewhere throughout our state and nation.
I think this is an important election year issue as both major parties court Hispanic voters, and some opportunistic politicians pander to them; however, I believe those politicians are mistaken if they think they can win by being soft on illegal immigration, which is opposed by the vast majority of voters including Hispanic Americans.
All of us remember those massive "immigrants' rights" demonstrations earlier this year in cities throughout the nation. Carrying Mexican flags, as they did here in Carson City, immigrants Ð both legal and illegal Ð and their misguided supporters demanded alleged rights to remain in this country and some of them displayed banners reading "Today we march, tomorrow we vote." Some political analysts and commentators, impressed by huge turnouts for these demonstrations, predicted that Hispanic voters will decide the outcome of mid-term elections this year and in 2008, when we'll elect a new president. Not so fast.
"Pro-immigrant rallies haven't produced new voters," read the headline on a wire service story published by the Appeal last Tuesday (but ignored by the liberal Reno Gazette- Journal). "An Associated Press review of voter registration figures from Chicago, Denver, Houston, Atlanta and other major cities that saw large (immigration) rallies shows no sign of an historic new voter boom that could sway elections," concluded AP writers Michael Blood and Peter Prengaman.
"Even in Los Angeles, where a 500,000-strong protest in March foreshadowed demonstrations across the U.S.," they continued, "an increase in new registrations before the June primary was more trickle than torrent in a country of nearly 4 million voters." And although Hispanics accounted for half the nation's population growth between the 2002 and 2004 elections, they represented only one-tenth of the number of votes cast.
In Carson City, where Hispanics make up approximately 20 percent of the local population, they account for a far lower percentage of voters -- less than five percent, in my opinion. During the ten years I've served as a poll worker I've seen a few Hispanic voters but no Spanish-only voters. This makes sense because voting rights are reserved for American citizens, almost all of whom speak and understand English. In other words, immigrants, whether legal or illegal, can't vote, and that's as it should be in an English-speaking nation. As a matter of fact, most of my Mexican-American friends, like the rest of us, are adamantly opposed to illegal immigration and favor strict voter requirements.
If anything, the massive immigrants' rights demonstrations alienated many mainstream voters, who were offended by the display of foreign flags and the fact that many Hispanic school children skipped school to join the demonstrations when they should have been in class learning English and studying U.S. history and government.
Hispanic voters may be a major factor in other jurisdictions, such as Los Angeles and/or Las Vegas, which have been inundated by waves of immigrants, both legal and illegal, but I repeat: Immigrants can't vote. And, as I've written many times, politicians who favor amnesty for illegal immigrants will pay a terrible price at the polls in November. That's why we'll ask tough questions of congressional candidates John Ensign, Jack Carter, Dean Heller and Jill Derby on this key issue prior to the mid-term election on Nov. 7. We'll also want to know how Secretary of State candidates Ross Miller and Danny Tarkanian feel about enforcing rigorous voter registration requirements.
Again, I support minority voter registration drives and believe that all Hispanic Americans should exercise their right to vote. But I oppose manipulations of the system such as that perpetrated by the Clinton administration in 1996, when hundreds of thousands of non-English-speaking immigrants, some of whom had criminal records, were naturalized in the months preceding a presidential election that Clinton won.
Sparks and Harvey Whittemore
Kudos to Deputy Atty. Genl. Neil Rombardo for taking on high-powered lawyer/ lobbyist/developer Harvey Whittemore, who usually gets what he wants when he wants it. The AG's Office has accused the Sparks City Council of violating the state's open meeting law by secretly approving construction of Whittemore's Lazy 8 "neighborhood casino" in a residential area along the Pyramid Highway. But that's business as usual for Whittemore, who had threatened the city with a $100 million lawsuit. The shoddy affair reminded me of a long-running campaign by Whittemore and his sometime partner, wealthy Las Vegas liquor distributor Larry Ruvo (of "Larry Ruvo Stateroom" fame), to build their own private pier at Glenbrook, a quiet Lake Tahoe retirement enclave, despite opposition from a majority of Glenbrook residents. Whittemore and Ruvo went shopping for a federal judge who would approve their pier project, and they finally found him in California. Business as usual.
• Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City.