It’s just not that complicated. Look at the changing demographics in the United States. Then think about what happens when you vote against the first Latina Supreme Court nominee.

Maybe McCain isn’t wise enough to see that reality, so I will tell him a story about a Dominican-born, U.S. citizen cabby from my Harlem neighborhood.

While he drove down Broadway, I asked the cabby if he thought that President Obama was pandering to the Latino communities across the country with the Sotomayor nomination.

“Pero muchacha!” he exclaimed in a true Dominican style. “He is not pandering. He owes us! Everyone knows now that without the Latino vote, you cannot win the presidency. He has to deliver, politically. I am a new citizen, and I voted for Obama my first time. Just like a bunch of us Dominican cabbies. Now this is my country and my politics.”

“And is that the way you guys talk amongst yourselves? That the Latino vote is that powerful?”

“Yep, asi lo vemos. That’s how we see it! But even though we love Sonia, Obama still owes us.”

And what must Obama deliver to satisfy this very politically astute cabby?

“Imigracion! He must solve this immigration problem. Families are divided up. It is unjust. So Obama must understand that is what we want him to deliver now.”

A wise Latino with some wise advice for the president. And for McCain and the Republican Party?

Buena suerte, winning the next elections!

But what is Hinojosa really communicating here? Is she showing her wisdom, or merely perpetuating racial stereotypes about Latinos, and stereotypes about Liberals generally? Here is what she is effectively saying:

1. Votes are more important than principles. “Who cares if McCain is opposed to Sotomayor’s confirmation based on principle? We’re talking about getting votes! What an idiot he is to throw away the Latino vote like that and hurt the Republican party!”  Unfortunately, Hinojosa is teaching her daughter that it’s ok for politicians to pander for votes and to not hold to principles. To put it more bluntly, it’s ok to lie as long as you get what you want. If Hinojosa’s daughter lies to her and tells her what she wants to hear, does she have any grounds to be surprised, let alone disappointed?

2. Race is more important than principle. “Who cares what Sonia Sotomayor believes in, or what legislation she’ll create from the bench, or whether she understands the Constitution, she’s a Latina, I’m a Latina (or a Latino in the case of the cab-driver) and so her being in office is good for me because we’re of the same race.” If it’s ok for the cabby and Hinojosa to be for Sotomayor simply because of their race, are they ok if white people vote for other white people simply because they’re of the same race?

3. Breaking the law is ok as long as you get what you want. As the cabby says “Families are divided up. It is unjust.” Families are also divided up if a father kills someone and ends up in prison. Is that unjust? Why is it unjust if the father chooses to come into the US illegally and the consequence of his choice is that his family is separated? If it is unjust, that implies that somebody has done something wrong. If it is not the father in this hypothetical situation, then who has done something wrong? Is it the US government, for not leaving the border wide open?

If Hinojosa and this cabby are truly representative of a majority of Latinos, then it does not bode well for either Latinos or the country as a whole. Hinojosa is telling politicians that all they have to do to get their vote is to tell them what they want to hear and throw them a bone every once in a while to make the lies seem credible. If Latinos want a better life for their children, they should be teaching them that principles are more important than votes, and the only good politicians is a politician who is willing to lose elections before losing his integrity. They should be teaching their children that it is the content of your mind and not the color of your skin that makes you who you are, and that you shouldn’t trust someone just because they’re the same race as you. They should be teaching their children that in America, they don’t owe anyone else if they succeed, and they can’t blame anyone else if they fail. They should be teaching their children that the rule of law is what makes America great, and when you obey those laws you like and ignore those that get in your way, then you end up with the kind of government you have in Mexico and all the poverty, crime, and suffering it brings with it.

I can only hope that Hinojosa and this cabby are exceptions, and that other Latinos don’t fit the stereotypes Hinojosa is perpetuating.

Unlike many conservatives, I’m not one of these build-a-wall-first and then discuss the rest of the problem later. I think a wall may be a good move, but I don’t think a wall by itself solves the problem, which is this–the United States provides something people in other countries desperately want. Something they want so badly they’re willing to leave home, friends, and family for it. Something they’re willing to risk their lives for, and in some cases die for. That “something” is freedom, and a better life, and while a wall may slow people down, it won’t stop illegal immigration. Don’t get me wrong, slowing the stream may be worth it, it’s just not going to solve the whole problem.

One of the major solutions to this problem is to make legal immigration easier. Some people have labeled those who are against illegal immigration as being racists. Maybe some anti-illegal immigration types are racists, but I have no problem with Mexicans or people of any other race coming here. I just don’t want them breaking the law to get here and then being rewarded for it. Gerardo, the guy mentioned in the article, has a job. He’s productive. He’s contributing something to the economy. He would contribute more if he were here legally. Why not make it easier for people like him to come here legally so they aren’t coming illegally?

Illegal immigrants from Latin American are less likely to learn English and assimilate into US culture. They’re less likely to get treated for communicable diseases. They’re more likely to commit crimes. I’m not saying we should make all the illegals legal, I’m saying let’s provide incentives for them to come here legally instead of coming illegally. If you’re concerned about language and culture the way to protect them is not a closed border (which is impossible) but an effective border. The first step is to make legal immigration a faster process.

I have a friend from Argentina who came here legally around 2000. It took him 7-8 years to get the visa he needed. He’s lucky it didn’t take a year longer or he may never have gotten it. He ended up as a truck driver, which is kind of like owning your own business. His business brings in around $200K/year (before expenses, which are large), or at least it did before the economic downturn. Suffice it to say, he’s productive. But why did he have to wait 7-8 years to get a visa? It should have been a 3-month wait, max. Then he could have been a productive member of our country for that much longer.

But it doesn’t stop at truck drivers and guys putting together engines like Gerardo. Our regulations also make it difficult for doctors, scientists, and computer programmers to come here. The yearly quota on H1B visas is reached the day they become available, and the demand is such that four or five times the number could be issued and they’d likely all be gone the first day as well. Where is the sense in keeping out the best and brightest, while allowing the least skilled to come in? I don’t have anything against the least skilled coming here, I just think it’s backwards and counter-productive to our country and economy to make it easier for them to get here and get work than for a PhD.

The only illegal immigrants should be criminals or those with ill-intent. Anyone who’s willing to come here and work hard should be allowed to with minimal fuss. But in order to make this a reality, here’s some other things I believe should change:

1. Abolish the minimum wage. The minimum wage does not protect workers or help families, it hurts them. It was originally instituted as a racist measure and continues to fulfill that role today. If people want to work for $4/hr because it’s better to earn $4/hr here in America than deal with life in Mexico than is it kindness and compassion to force employers to either pay employees under the table (in which case it’s probably under the minimum wage anyway) or not hire these people at all?

2. Those here illegally go to the back of the line. Of course if the line is only three months long this isn’t that big a deal, but certainly nobody who came here illegally should get preference over someone who is coming here the right way.

3. Abolish most entitlement programs. It should be enough of a reward for an immigrant to simply participate in the free market America provides. Government provided healthcare, welfare assistance, and other programs provide incentives that not only bankrupt the states and the country, but generally don’t help those they’re intended to help. And I’m not saying abolish these programs just for immigrants, I mean for everybody. I don’t believe we can afford them for who we’ve got here already, but we certainly can’t afford them if we have an influx of immigrants.

4. Incentives to be law-abiding. Immigrants should have strong incentives to obey the law. I would advocate a one-strike-you’re-deported-never-to-return policy when it comes to felonies prior to becoming a citizen, and I wouldn’t allow citizenship to be granted for at least 10 years.

5. 100% free trade. I also advocate abolishing all trade restrictions other than on illegal products. No, I don’t mean we’ll have open trade with Mexico if they have open trade with us, I mean we should remove all trade restrictions, period. With any country. Regardless of what they do. Trade restrictions don’t help anyone but governments and beuaracrat pet projects in the short-term. Even if other countries don’t drop their trade restrictions it still benefits us to drop ours, and once other countries see the benefits we get from it they’d be more likely to follow suit. Dropping trade restrictions would go a long way to not only boost our own productivity and prosperity, but that of the entire world. As other countries followed suit, their own prosperity would rise, and there would be less reason for immigration at all, let alone illegal immigration.

But what if the article is about illegal immigration, the person being quoted is against illegal immigration, and the person being quoted has a middle name that sounds Caucasian, and a last name that sounds Latino? Would you as a journalist then use their middle name to reduce what you feel might be unfair bias against the person being quoted due to their Latino last name? But in doing so aren’t you introducing your own bias into the article, namely that you think some people reading the article might have biases against Latino names? And aren’t you trying to manipulate how people feel about the person being quoted, rather than simply using standard writing procedures and letting the chips fall where they may?

In the article Work begins on $57 million border fence in San Diego this is what appears to have happened, although again, I’m not journalist, and I’m not passing final judgment or assuming this is an example of journalistic bias so much as I’m asking the question whether it is or not.

The 12th paragraph in the article reads “‘It’s crazy,’ said Victor Clark Alfaro, director of the Binational Center for Human Rights in Tijuana. ‘I don’t see the justification to spend $60 million on an area that’s no longer an important crossing.’”

And then in paragraph 13 it picks up “Clark predicted the new fence will reduce crossings to ‘almost zero’ but inflict serious environmental damage.” (italics and bold added)

So why did the writer use “Clark” rather than “Alfaro”? Journalistic bias and manipulation, perfectly normal and acceptable writing style, a simple mistake, or an evil conspiracy by the Mexican government to kill all Americans, eat them, and rule the world? Ok, probably not the last one.