How US Agriculture Built the ICE Crisis

People need to realise that getting unlawfully present people to do the work is not the answer to immigration. Would people on the left support slavery?

If no person is illegal...

Does this mean that you believe that slaves should legal?

After all, slaves are people.

But the issue isn't the person, but their status. Whether it is a slave or an unlawfully present person.

Yes, the person isn't "illegal", but their presence in the country is not legal. 

The right to enter one’s country, to stay in a country which one has legally entered, and to leave any country including one’s own, have been perceived as basic since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. When individuals claim human rights relating to freedom of movement, they are referring to the same facts and situations that states are concerned with when they assert jurisdiction over their own nationals and over resident aliens. The international law of jurisdiction is the means by which states allocate competence, between themselves, for the prescription and application of authority over events inside and outside their national boundaries.

The only people who have a right to come and go freely into a country are the citizens of that country. It's discretionary otherwise.

And people who haven't complied with the law are not lawfully present in the country.

I don't think it's the best idea to allow people who are not willing to comply with immigration laws to become citizens.

Let's stop playing games with Immigration and get serious about it.

Too much confusion about immigration laws all around.

OK, this is one of the more complex aspects of law and most people have no idea that some things are a lot more complex than they appear. People talk about the "dreamers" as if they were like the people in Britain who were "Windrushed".

I have no sympathy for the Dreamers, but I have a lot of sympathy for the victims of a "Windrush".

But any serious discussion of immigration law requires some explanation. This is highly simplistic, but it gives an idea of how all this works.

First principle is that only citizens of a nation have a right to enter and exit the nation freely under international law. Everybody else enters and exits a foreign nation does so under condition. It is not a right for someone to enter a foreign country: especially unlawfully.

There are two ways to get citizenship: by birth or naturalisation. Birth can work by jus soli or jus sanguinus.The United States uses jus soli, which means someone has citizenship merely by being born inside the US. It is in the Constitution (14th Amendment).

Like most countries, the United States also has jus sanguinus, which means that you can have citizenship through your parents registering your foreign birth. People can inherit citizenship depending on the other countries' laws (e.g, Italy, Ireland, The United Kingdom, etc.).

Most countries have combinations of both jus soli or jus sanguinus. Some do it in such a way so that simply being born in a country does not result in citizenship (Ireland now requires at least one parent is an Irish Citizen or resident alien for citizenship). The US can't do this without changing the Constitution to require some parental connection to the United States. That was something that made sense after emancipation of the slaves, but doesn't make sense now.

The US is one place where the laws are fairly static, for what that is worth. One cannot lose, or renounce, citizenship without some serious consequences. The people who usually lose citizenship are people who became citizens under fraudulent circumstances (e.g, war criminals).

Another thing to explain is that Asylum is regulated by International law.

Asylum is a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or at the border who meet the international law definition of a “refugee.” The United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Congress incorporated this definition into U.S. immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980.

Asylum is an incredibly complex topic. I could easily do a very large book on the topic. The bottom line here is that not everyone qualifies as a refugee: no matter how sad their story may be. People escaping Central America's gang violence is a case in point: especially since most of those gangs were formed in the US!

Coming to the US to escape gangs in Central America makes as much sense as going to Sicily to escape the Mafia.

I'll add in that A valid passport is required for entry into most foreign countries. More than 80% of all countries in the world require a passport for entry. Some countries require foreign nationals to have a visa. Even if a passport is not required for entrance into a foreign country, it is required to re-enter the United States in most cases. Additionally, there are visa requirements for entry into the US for some foreign nationals. Not having the proper visa is another violation of immigration law.

Lack of the proper documentation as a foreigner means the person is in violation of immigration laws and unlawfully present in the country.

As I said, this is highly simplistic, but it explains the basics.

The real bottom line is that the law is the law. It doesn't matter whether one agrees with it or not. One must obey the law as is.

Or work to change it.

See also:

• 'I felt like dirt': disabled Canadian woman told to leave UK after 44 years 
• Windrush generation: Who are they and why are they facing problems?
• Windrush: How do you prove you've been living in the UK?

Windrush is not the same as the "dreamers"

First off, the "dreamers" are unlawfully present. They are fully aware that they are not legal immigrants.

Secondly, DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (and DAPA is Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) aren't really amnesties. Neither do they change the status from being unlawfully present to lawfully present.  They merely "defer" any deportation.

DACA and DAPA recipients are still unlawfully present and would need to leave the country for the required period of deportation to even consider getting legal residency under current law.

On the other hand, Windrush refers to people who were citizens of colonies or commonwealth countries. The picture of the British Empire Passports gives you a clue to the problem.  These people were under the impression that they were British Citizens, which they were up until 1971.

Wouldn't you think you were British if your passport said "British Passport"? Or said you were a "British Subject"?

First part of the changes were some of the places Windrush immigrants came from gained independence.  The Second part was The The Immigration Act 1971, which ironically was also partly passed to legally clarify the rights of Commonwealth citizens within the United Kingdom in preparation for future membership of the European Communities which the UK became a member state on 1 January 1973 which gave new automatic rights to EC member state citizens.

So, it's amusing this is coming in tandem with Brexit which is now removing the right of residency for EU member state citizens.  Anyway...

A closer analogy for people in the US would be an overzealous ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) going after people who were from Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands since those are territories, not states. The Philippines, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau are former territories which gained independence from the US. People from American Samoa can visit the US without a visa, but they need to go through the naturalisation process to become citizens.

Windrush vs. the "Dreamers".

OK, we are told about a group of people who came to a country for a better life, but are having problems with their immigration status.

Who do you feel sorry for: the people who didn't do it legally?

or

The people who were legal immigrants, who were actually invited to build a war torn nation, yet now find the legality of their immigration status in question?

Personally, I go with the second group, which is a discussion of the Windrush Generation. Given the Windrush crowd is pretty much black and from the Caribbean (although I do know of people from the Subcontinent who were invited under similar circumstances). Windrush refers to:

Those arriving in the UK between 1948 and 1971 from Caribbean countries have been labelled the Windrush generation.
This is a reference to the ship MV Empire Windrush, which arrived at Tilbury Docks, Essex, on 22 June 1948, bringing workers from Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and other islands, as a response to post-war labour shortages in the UK.
The ship carried 492 passengers - many of them children.

Since they were Commonwealth Citizens, they had a right of residency in the UK. The Windrush generation were legal, even if they were the subjects of racism. That is a big difference from the DAPA/DACA crowd who arrived illegally and have been looking over their shoulder from the start.

Get the picture?

Although, there is some debate about their legality, but they were colonial citizens. This is a summary of the problem:

The Home Office did not keep a record of those granted leave to remain or issue any paperwork confirming it - meaning it is difficult for Windrush arrivals to prove they are in the UK legally.
And in 2010, landing cards belonging to Windrush migrants were destroyed by the Home Office.
Because they came from British colonies that had not achieved independence, they believed they were British citizens.

Add into this mess the fact that many Windrush migrants who have had their legal status called into question have been in the UK for decades, often paying taxes and making pension contributions. Windrush migrants must prove they have been in the UK continually since 1 January 1973, when they were granted the right to stay in the country permanently. Anyone who has left the country for more than two years loses their right to remain. The Home Office did not keep records of the people to whom it granted indefinite leave to remain in the 1970s. Some stayed but did not apply for British citizenship meaning there is no official record of their legal status. People must apply for an official stamp known as No Time Limit (NTL), at a cost of £229 to have this official recognition for their right of abode in the UK.


I see a few differences here between people who are called "Dreamers" and the Windrush crowd. First off, Windrush had a legal status and were invited to live in the UK. Second off, the Windrush crowd was living as legal citizens. Thirdly, their situation is primarily one of bureaucratic malfeasance, which isn't just attributable to the Tories since it was a Labour government that destroyed the landing cards.

That is quite a difference between the "dreamers" whose entry was not legal and their status is that of being unlawfully present in the US. The dreamers have had the threat of deportation hanging over their head from the start based upon their being unlawfully present. There are legal remedies for the "dreamers", but they entail leaving the United States and going to the back of the line.

Tough shit, they should have paid an immigration lawyer less than they paid their coyote to get them into the US. Toss in we are talking human trafficking if there were indeed coyotes involved.

Bottom line, I am not a fan of amnesties. People can work to make the laws more favourable toward immigration if they have an issue with unlawfully present people getting proper immigration status. On the other hand, I have much more sympathies for people like the Windrush Generation, or the people whose residency will be put in the air by Brexit than I do with people who try to skirt immigration law sas the "dreamers" have done.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

See also:

• 'I felt like dirt': disabled Canadian woman told to leave UK after 44 years 
• Windrush generation: Who are they and why are they facing problems?
• Windrush: How do you prove you've been living in the UK?

What about the parents?

DACA is Deferred Action for CHILDHOOD Arrivals, which makes me wonder what about the parents?

Seriously.

First off, the parents of these kids are the ones responsible for the kids' lack of proper immigration status, but more importantly what is the status of the parents?  I think it might be safe to assume that the parents are also unlawfully present in the US.

Let's toss in that these caring parents have chosen a path which could lead to the children being deported and barred for anywhere from five, ten, or 20 years, and in some cases, ever being able to return to the U.S. at all. Not to mention that is could mean NEVER becoming a US citizen.

Why isn't that being discussed?

So, we are supposed to feel sorry for these poor children who came here unlawfully because mommy and daddy weren't willing to obey the rules.  The kiddies are being snatched from a nation where they don't have a legal right to be (immigration is a privilege, not a right).

And families are being broken apart.

What?????

But if the parents are being deported, shouldn't the children as well?

Anyway, I would rather have someone like Abdi Iftin or a few hundred thousand Rohinga Muslims who are willing to follow the rules enter the country than allow someone who should be barred from citizenship according to US law to be fast tracked into citizenship,

So long, and thanks for all the money.

OK, I knew that one of the anti-DACA talking points was BS: that unlawfully present people do not pay taxes.

They do using something called an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN). The ITIN is a tax processing number issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to ensure that people, including unauthorized immigrants, pay taxes even if they do not have a Social Security number and regardless of their immigration status.

The ITIN doesn't grant any sort of immigration status, but many immigrants have them. 

The ITIN is a nine-digit number that always begins with the number 9 and has a 7 or 8 in the fourth digit, for example 9XX-7X-XXXX. It seems to be it would be obvious if someone is trying to work without proper authorisation to the immigration authorities doing a record check.

A lot of countries levy a fine against people who are unlawfully present.  Any funds paid should be considered a penalty for failing to properly comply with immigration status.

So long, and thanks for all the money.

 See also:
 The Facts About the Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN)

More DACA Bullshit.

As I said in my last post, I am not anti-Immigrant and I believe in free movement, but one needs to follow the rules. I don't give a shit where the unlawfully present immigrant comes from--they are not present with legal authorisation, they should expect the consequences.

Next. The rule of law means that the law applies to EVERYBODY EQUALLY.  Somebody breaks the law, they should expect the consequences.

Secondly, unless you are a citizen: entering and exiting a nation is not a right, it is a privilege.

The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes.  338 U. S. 542.

I don't get where the fuck people who are not US nationals (or the nationals of any other country) think they somehow they have a right to be in a country where they are not citizens.  The BREXIT thing is showing that the right to free movement can be lost by non-citizens who had a right to free movement.

So, I really don't get people who are unlawfully present somehow believing they have an entitlement to remain in a nation.  Pretty much all the nations in the world will deport: some impose criminal penalties before deportation.

And don't get me into the Palestinian situation (short form: I think people should STFU about supporting US illegals until they step up to the plate and support Palestinian right of return).

So, unless you are a citizen of a country--don't expect to have a right to reside in that country.

The US has been pretty nice to its unlawfully present aliens, but it looks as if the undocumented are now getting a nasty surprise. 

The dream was actually a nightmare.

I don't get DACA and its supporters.

OK, lets start with the silly "people can't be illegal" argument.

It's not the people who are "illegal"--it's their lack of proper immigration status (i.e., tourist, resident alien, or what I am going to call "citizen candidate") that is illegal.

Sorry, I am all for immigration and free movement, but fuck you if you aren't going to live by the rules.  You took your chances, you live with the consequences.

Some illegals pay people smugglers as much if not way more than they would pay a good immigration lawyer. Really fuck them. And I say that for a lot of reasons. The people smugglers are serious criminals.

There are more than enough people out there who are willing to follow the rules, no matter how difficult, to immigrate that I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who want to bypass the system.  As I said above, You took your chances, you live with the consequences.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) doesn't grant any real immigration status, it just defers the deportation status.  These people could be, and now are, being threatened with, or possibly, deported.

The worst part about DACA is that children are being used as pawn in the debate. One trick in propaganda is to use emotions. And what tugs on your heartstrings more than some poor little kiddie whose parents brought him to another country in violation of the law, but has somehow assimilated enough so that returning to their native land would be a "hardship".

They have gone on to:

"Did you know this about DACA recipients: 95% are working, in college or have joined our military, 48% got a job with better working conditions, 90% got a driver’s license or state ID and 12% were even able to buy a first home."

"Joined our military"--that sends bells ringing in my head since the US Military is SUPPOSED to check immigration status--and DACA recipients AREN'T US CITIZENS, they aren't even on a path to citizenship!

I know of at least one case where a woman "self-deported" because she couldn't get federal college funds.

Something stinks about all the pro-DACA reporting, but I can't really put my finger on it.  I think Breitbart did, but unfortunately they are considered unreliable.  I would need some sort of unbiased verification of that story to really cite to it.  My personal inclination is to think Breitbart is onto something.

The problem is that this seems to be a big smoke screen to me for a lot of other things related to immigration policy.  The usual hard questions where the debate is being done in the dark because people are being lied to.

See also
Open Borders: Human Smuggling Fees.
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) - Immigration Equality
Raised in America, now back in Mexico: 'The country I loved kicked me out'
Billionaires Petition for Cheaper Workers, DACA Amnesty - Breitbart

Flag Propaganda 5: Miami, Florida, and old Glory

how we saluted the flag In American classrooms
 during the pledge of allegiance prior to December 1942
image from wikipedia[

Salute to the U.S. flag devised by pledge of allegiance
author Francis Bellamy, known as the Bellamy salute

This series on flag propaganda by the radical right details specific examples of how lies and manipulation of information is being used to polarize this country, and how it acts to create a vulnerable and gullible group of well meaning conservatives susceptible to ginned up wedge issues to turn out the vote.

We had another one of these many and continuing stories this past week or so, all over the right wing propaganda machine, pandering to conservative prejudice and ignorance.

The latest pseudo-scandal in the ongoing misinformation campaign about our flag by conservatives comes from Florida, specifically the Miami PD where this propaganda is being combined with conservative fascism to attack both freedom of religion, feminism and immigrants -- the ultimate in Us vs Them politics -- by targeting a black Muslim woman who is an assistant chief of police in a deep southern state as the most recent example of flag propaganda.

From the Source.com:
Miami PD Supports Muslim Assistant Police Chief Who Was Criticized For Not Pledging To Flag



A muslim Assistant Police Chief was within her rights to not salute the American flag during a police ceremony

The Miami Police Department said Assistant Chief Of Police Anita Najiy followed proper code when deciding not to salute the American flag while in uniform during a recent promotional ceremony. According to the Miami Herald, Maj. Delrish Moss said,

“the military code of conduct supersedes police code and that Najiy properly followed that code. While the department’s code of conduct allows for a reprimand if an officer doesn’t salute the flag, it makes no mention of covering the heart during the pledge.”

Najiy was harshly criticized by the Miami Fraternal Order of Police President Sgt. Javier Ortiz, who publicized the incident insisted that Najiy, who did stand at attention during the ceremony, did not place her hand on her heart because she is a Muslim.

Najiy, a 31-year veteran of the agency and devout Muslimah, made history in Miami last year as an African-American and as a female by being appointed Assistant Chief of Police. It was the first time in the history of the Miami Police Department that a female member was appointed to Assistant Chief of Police. During the ceremony last year, Chief Manuel Orosa said, “I am privileged to select Commander Najiy as one of my assistant chiefs. Our 116-year city has witnessed many milestones, but this, by far, is one of the greatest of our history.”

In response to Ortiz statements, The Miami Police Benevolent Association released a statement on Wednesday criticizing Ortiz’s obsession with tearing down Naijay, saying Ortiz was being hypocritical, considering he himself did not salute the flag because he was busy taping Najiy. The Association said,

“Racism cloaked in patriotism is a huge insult to the American flag, the city of Miami Police Department and the countless hate and anti-Muslim filled rants generated by the recent antics of the FOP president; those two things seem to be the genesis of the current false controversy.”

So, NO, this woman did not fail to put her hand over her heart because she is a Muslim (gasp! <sarcasm>) who hates America, as conservatives want people to believe. She did it because that was the correct protocol, the correct FORM of respect for her to follow. There was no anti-American sentiment, no disloyalty or disrespect involved whatsoever. But THAT is not the factual version circulated by flag propagandists like Fox News and Breitbart seeking to factually alter the real 'narrative', as noted by Freethoughtblogs,com:

Sgt. Javier Ortiz, president of the Miami Fraternal Order of Police, wants Assistant Chief Anita Najiy removed from her position as honor guard commander. He sent a letter Monday to Chief Rodolfo Llanes seeking a reprimand.

Ortiz claims that Najiy’s failure to salute the flag “to make a political statement” during Friday’s ceremony at the Miami Police College is a violation of the police oath. He calls her actions “unprofessional and disgraceful.”

“She is actively refusing to show allegiance to the United States of America, which is part of our oath as law enforcement officers,” Ortiz told Local 10 News. “This has been going on for several months.”…

“By not publicly showing her allegiance to our nation with the rest of the Miami Police Department, she is violating our oath,” Ortiz wrote.

Ortiz also questions Najiy’s allegiance to the country.

“If she isn’t loyal to the United States of America, what country is she loyal and allegiant to?” Ortiz wrote.

“What makes you think she does not have allegiance just because of a physical actions?” asked Local 10’s Glenna Milberg.

“Because she is denouncing the United States in full police uniform and she is making a political statement by wearing that uniform,” Ortiz said.

“But is that what she’s doing or that’s your take on what she’s doing?” Milberg asked.

“Well, what else is she doing? She’s not pledging allegiance to the flag,” Ortiz said.

That was a deliberate LIE circulated by conservatives for a reason - several reasons: to create fear, to gin up hatred towards Muslims, to undermine women in positions of authority, to create a false impression of victimization of conservatives under the cover of pretend patriotism, with a generous garnish of racism and anti-feminism. The apparently conservative tea bagger Ortiz is appearing to be just a cheap media whore in his ongoing demands for Najiy to be disciplined.


On a fundamental level, it is about how people intentionally peddle hate and ignorance and fear. On a fundamental level it is about the dumbing down of America.


On a fundamental level it is about factual versus fictional history, and it is about marginalizing and isolating people in dangerous and evil ways that are profoundly in conflict with our national motto - e pluribus unum, and our history as a tolerant and accepting melting pot of many people forming one nation that is stronger because of those combined cultural influences and ethic heritage.


It is informative as part of a larger understanding of our current politics in the context of factual history, factual current events, and understanding the defining characteristics of conservative fascism which include hyper patriotism, reconstituted factually inaccurate notions of previous 'golden ages' of history, and intolerant authoritarianism.

In this regard the pledge of allegiance in our history and how we have saluted - or not saluted - our national symbol, our flag, is particularly apt. At right is a photo of the Bellamy salute, a salute invented by the author of the pledge of allegiance. This Hitler and Mussolini style salute was changed, precisely BECAUSE it was too fascist.


from Wikipedia:

The Bellamy salute is the salute described by Francis Bellamy, Christian socialist minister and author, to accompany the American Pledge of Allegiance, which he had authored. During the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance, it was sometimes known as the "flag salute". Later, during the 1920s and 1930s, Italian fascists and Nazis adopted a salute which had the same form, and which was derived from the Roman salute. This resulted in controversy over the use of the Bellamy salute in the United States. It was officially replaced by the hand-over-heart salute when Congress amended the Flag Code on December 22, 1942.
The inventor of the gesture was James B. Upham, junior partner and editor of The Youth's Companion.^[1] Bellamy recalled Upham, upon reading the pledge, came into the posture of the salute, snapped his heels together, and said "Now up there is the flag; I come to salute; as I say 'I pledge allegiance to my flag,' I stretch out my right hand and keep it raised while I say the stirring words that follow."

The Bellamy salute was first demonstrated on October 12, 1892 according to Bellamy's published instructions for the "National School Celebration of Columbus Day":

At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the flag the military salute -- right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it. Standing thus, all repeat together, slowly, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.” At the words, “to my Flag,” the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, toward the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side.

— From The Youth’s Companion, 65 (1892): 446–447.

 But what is especially significant about the fuss over saluting the flag and the pledge of allegiance, and all things surrounding the flag and assertions of patriotism (or disloyalty to the nation). There is in fact a long history of flag propaganda and attempts to smear individuals using the flag and the pledge of allegiance (continuing from the wikipedia entry linked above), which should of itself instruct us that the flag has a long history of being hijacked for propaganda purposes. Those who do not learn these lessons from history are doomed to repeat them, or worse, to be victimized by them:

The similarity to the Bellamy salute led to confusion, especially during World War II. From 1939 until the attack on Pearl Harbor, detractors of Americans who argued against intervention in World War II produced propaganda using the salute to lessen those Americans' reputations. Among the anti-interventionist Americans was aviation pioneer Charles Lindbergh. Supporters of Lindbergh's views would claim that Lindbergh did not support Adolf Hitler, and that pictures of him appearing to do the Nazi salute were actually pictures of him using the Bellamy salute. In his Pulitzer prize winning biography Lindbergh, author A. Scott Berg explains that interventionist propagandists would photograph Lindbergh and other isolationists using this salute from an angle that left out the American flag, so it would be indistinguishable from the Hitler salute to observers.
In order to prevent further confusion or controversy, the United States Congress instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute to be rendered by civilians during the Pledge of Allegiance in the United States, instead of the Bellamy salute.[2] This was done when Congress amended the Flag Code on December 22, 1942.

There was initially some resistance to dropping the Bellamy salute, for example from the Daughters of the American Revolution,[5] but this opposition died down quickly following Nazi Germany's declaration of war against the United States on December 11, 1941.

We should ALL be concerned about the attempts to coerce conformity of conduct at the expense of diversity and individual, personal exercise of conscience that are the hallmark of conservative intolerance, as a justification for bigotry and prejudice. The reality is that we have a wide range of people who do not state the pledge of allegiance (in part because of the inclusion mandated by conservative theocrats of the phrase 'under God' which was not original to the pledge) and who also do not swear to tell the truth in courts either. It is not uncommon for this to be a reflection of individual conscience or of religion; for example, the very influential Quaker community which was so influential to our nation's founding, including figures like Benjamin Franklin, did not swear such an oath in court. Instead for centuries there has been a legal alternative of 'affirmation' which is perfectly equivalent for the law and our courts.

Right Wing's Fear: Minority babies now in majority A little reality check, a little visual political humor

Right winger's fear; they are in an increasingly smaller and smaller minority.  They have money, but they don't have enough bodies, and the bodies they DO have are mirrored in this image.  Their demographic is a bunch of fat old white guys who tote guns and believe any false line of nonsense told to them by the NRA, a demographic that is dying off, OR the wealthy manipulators behind ALEC, the well-described 1%s and those who vote with them, the aspirational voters who hope someday to be wealthy even if that doesn't happen.  The Mitt R-money demographic are the few, the wealthy, the old, the white, who turned out for him in the primaries, the 1% to maybe the top 10%.  Some of the Tea Partiers and more blue collar right wing, the ill-educated right, the anti-science, anti-intellect and anti-education right might vote for him -- or they might not show up to vote at all in 2012, the way that most conservatives failed this time to show up at the primaries.  The anti-gay wedge issue isn't working; the anti-immigrant wedge issue is still a hot button...........but not one that will bring over the minority and independent voters.  Conservative voters are divided pretty much along the lines below:

From the WaPo this past March:
Exit polls in both Michigan and Ohio show voters making more than $100,000 per year turning out in much higher numbers this year than they did in 2008. And in both cases, they might well have provided the difference for Romney.
In 2008, 22 percent of GOP primary voters in Michigan made at least $100,000, and that group made up 21 percent of the electorate in Ohio, according to exit polls.
This year, 33 percent of voters in Michigan made that much money, while 30 percent of Ohio voters did.
In both cases, the number of wealthy voters grew by about 50 percent — a pretty stunning increase in that demographic over just a four-year span.
And an argument could be made that the increase put Romney over the top.
In both states, Romney won this demographic by 14 points but didn’t win among any other income demographic. And given he won by such small margins overall — 1 point in Ohio and 3 points in Michigan — it’s not unreasonable to think he would have lost those states without the uptick in wealthy voters.
But in a general election, that doesn't work.  In a general election, you don't win on only older white rich  voters.  R-money - and the GOP and Tea Partiers - have seriously alienated women and Hispanics.
The offensively anti-women vote yesterday in the House that badly weakened the Violence Against Women Act was only the latest of those insults and injuries which antagonize those voting populations.