If the battle you are referring to consists primarily of "illegal immigration", then the battle is already close to being lost. Yes, I say that in all earnest: LOST. We are nearing that point in our history where no "reversal" (back to the norms of yesteryear) of these trends can be possible, without the risk of violent confrontation (certainly insofar as California goes).
The following post was written for the "California recall" threads, but I'll post it again. For years, California has been regarded as a "trend-setter", a harbinger of the fate of the _rest of_ the country. Perhaps now that can be changed, although California itself must be sacrificed in order to save the rest of the nation (or at least _most_ of the nation, save for the "Atzlan states").
-----------
CALIFORNIA'S FATE
California is finished. Nothing, nor anyone, can save it now. Repeat: no one -- not McClintock, not Swarzenegger, NO ONE -- can turn California around. Whatever destiny California faces, it is rushing headlong towards that fate _today_.
The problem is not that California's course can't be changed. The problem _is_ that the steps necessary to actually _reverse_ California's progress towards disaster will be perceived as too draconian to take. Too draconian even by the terms of a Swarzenegger or McClintock. With tongue only half-in-cheek, it would take a politician of the persuasion of David Duke to actually speak the "fix" that is needed on the left coast.
It is obvious to me (and I would think also obvious to most readers of Free Republic), California has two overwhelming problems, one social, one fiscal, but both related.
The "social" problem is the innundation -- more succinctly, the INVASION -- of illegals (mostly Mexicans) from across the southern border. How many are living there now? I presume _any_ number officials come up with actually UNDERcounts the present number of illegals in the state. And how many more arrive every day?
And how many millions more will come in the future? 10 million? 20 million? Who is going to STOP them from coming? The border patrol? (hearty laugh) The answer: NO ONE. No politician in California (again, short of Mr. Duke, if they can persuade him to migrate there) is going to bluntly state that there are:
• Too many illegals in California now, and
• That no more should come, and
• That the ones already there should be "encouraged" to return to their native land(s).
Does anyone reading this seriously think that Arnold Swarzenegger will say as much?
Does anyone reading this seriously think that Tom McClintock will say as much?
So I think that it's a certainty to state that the illegal invasion will continue into the foreseeable future.
With the continuing flood of illegals, the second problem is economic. To wit: the hordes of illegals must be subsidized by the state, and, it follows, by the productive citizens of the state -- i.e., the taxpayers.
But there are so many [largely illegal] "tax-consumers" now (with their numbers growing daily) that there isn't enough revenue from the tax-producers to pay for them. The state is going broke at breakneck speed. Many conservative Californians perceive this, and are packing up and moving out. That will exacerbate the problems, like some kind of "Laffer curve" gone insane. As the tax-consuming population zooms upward, the tax-producers will escape across the borders. And the state's deficit will degenerate into something resembling an economic black hole.
They _had_ a chance to put some brakes on it with Proposition 187. But we all know what happened to that.
Not being familiar with the particulars of the court decision that declared 187 unconstitutional -- and whether that court decision could still be appealed to a higher forum (read: U.S. Supreme Court), would Tom McClintock be willing to push for a _new_ ballot initiative to deny benefits to illegals? And -- after it is again declared unconstitutional at the Circuit Court level, will he keep pushing? Would a Governor Ah-nuld do the same?
I doubt it. Whatever steps a Republican governor might take, he is going to be thwarted by the overwhelming Democratic majority at every step. The more drastic the proposals a McClintock or Swarzenegger might make (and, as explained above, only drastic measures can have a Chinaman's chance of turning the Titanic of California around), the greater resistance he will face from the legislature.
Ultimately, California will likely become the first state in history that goes bankrupt. $38 BILLION in debt NOW, with no relief in sight. How are they going to get out of this? Will Congress force the other 49 states to pay for it? Answer: unknown at this time. This could become an issue in the 2004 presidential election - remember that you read this prediction here first.
Perhaps, for the _rest of us_ (meaning everyone in the other 49 states), the election of Bustamente might be the preferable alternative. For, if anything, Bustamente (with his MECHA background) will take pro-active steps to accelerate the conversion of California into a quasi-Mexican state, finishing off any hope that the bulk of the state will remain something resembling the rest of the United States.
In other threads, I've stated several times that conservatives in the "other 49" should ask themselves the "Ann Landers question" regarding California: would we be better off with it, or withOUT it?
I realize there is still a conservative base within California, but in the future, they will find themselves marginalized in the same way that whites are being demonized in South Africa. The only recourse for survival will become physical escape.
And as California inches ever closer to the precipice, perhaps the best course for the rest of America will be to let it fall away. For all the talk of the legendary earthquake that would cause the state to slide into the Pacific, ultimately, it will be an "earthquake" of social/economic upheaval that splits the erstwhile golden state from the rest of the nation.
Cheers!
- John