This page was last updated on June 19, 2011.
An American irony; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 16, 2011.
Regardless of who does it, I oppose gerrymandering. The idea of “Nonpartisan Political Redistricting by Computer” goes back to at least the mid-1960s. Among my goals for the algorithm would be 1) district boundaries as much as possible along political (county, township, etc., not political party) boundaries, 2) the district population “center of gravity” close to the geographic center of the district, and 3) more or less “regular” shapes (acknowledging the fact political boundaries make perfect geometric shapes impossible). The program would be given no information about resident age, ethnicity, party affiliation, religion, sex, skin color, et cetera.
The editorial says, “Texas Republicans will pick up more seats in the U.S. House, furthering their party’s chances of imposing tougher restrictions on legal immigration and harsher laws on illegal immigration, with Hispanics being the focal point.” This drive-by accusation is hogwash. You may recall BCT editorials tend not to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants because it allows the BCT to refer to those against illegal immigration as being against immigration. In other words, if you are anti-illegal immigration but support legal immigration, the BCT still deems you to be anti-immigrant and thus in favor of “imposing tougher restrictions on legal immigration.”
I lived in Texas for nearly 19 years (1983-2002) and never did I hear “Texas Republicans” or any other Republicans were in favor of “imposing tougher restrictions on legal immigration and harsher laws on illegal immigration.” The position of most Republicans is simply to enforce existing immigration laws and to defend the border with Mexico. That said, Republicans like former President and Texas Governor George W. Bush wanted more liberal (not as in political liberalism) treatment of illegal aliens.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.