It is not a stretch, perhaps, to regard the Senate vote of over two thirds (68-32) in favor of a mass amnesty of illegal immigrants as signaling the eclipse of the historic American people, those brave and liberty-loving folk who created the United States out of a continental wilderness.  The bill has the Orwellian title “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization.”  A good many of the senators who voted for the bill were around to vote for earlier immigration laws that they knew would never be enforced.

Much less attention is paid to the political differences of regions these days than used to be the case, except for occasional references to Red and Blue States or when occasion arises to exorcise the South for being the center of all evil opposition to the progressive agenda.  But region remains a major consideration to the extent that traditional roots and attitudes persist in some places.

My fellow secessionist Bill Cawthon pays attention to these things, and his analysis of the Senate vote on amnesty shows the same thing that he has found to be the case on every major leftist measure passed in the last half-century.  The South is the only region that has voted a majority against revolutionary measures.

In the northeastern United States (24 votes) only one senator, Toomey of Pennsylvania, voted nay.  The other three Republicans voted yea.  The vote of the Pacific states was unanimous for amnesty, including a couple of Republicans.  From the industrial Midwest (ten votes), the region hardest hit by deindustrialization and unemployment, as Tom Piatak has pointed out in these pages, only three senators voted against.  The majority included one Republican.  Obviously, the ruling class of this region dances to the tune of limousine liberalism instead of the dreary business of looking after the plain folks.

The agricultural (trans-Mississippi) Midwest did somewhat better, with 7 of 14 Senators voting nay on amnesty.  Still, aside from the heartland of Kansas and Nebraska and Southern-tinged Missouri, there were only two nays from this region.  One Republican voted yea.

The senators from the Mountain states voted 11-5 for amnesty.  Amnesty support was solid for Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Montana, and four Republicans from this region voted yea.  Only Wyoming and Idaho were solid against.

Overall, 14 Republicans voted for amnesty.

Only the South had a majority against amnesty, 16-10.  There is little comfort in this figure, however, because the Southern vote against previous amnesties of illegals was bigger and even included some Democrats.  There are now more liberal Democratic senators from the South than ever before.  All six of these voted for amnesty.  But more significantly, four establishment Republicans from the South voted for amnesty.  These, of course, included the repulsive, epicene Lindsey Graham.  Interestingly, Graham’s appointed African-American Republican colleague from South Carolina, Tim Scott, voted with the patriots against amnesty.

As might be expected, Virginia, Florida, and Tennessee are entirely lost to the South.  The bulk of the nays came from Border and Deep South states that have been least affected by immigration.  North Carolina, which not too long ago elected and reelected Sam Ervin and Jesse Helms, came within a fraction of voting for Obama in the last presidential election.  The state has been a dumping ground for masses of Mexicans and Asians and of Northerners feasting on the relative prosperity.  Further, the Carolinas have now replaced Florida as the favored location for affluent Northeasterners fleeing the mess they have made in their home states.  (I know of a place near Charleston with 200 secluded mini-mansions.  It is virtually empty in the summer, but in the winter it is rife with New Jersey license plates.)

A curious exception seems to be Texas.  Despite the vast Mexican population, Texas voted Republican in the last presidential election, and both senators voted against amnesty.  It would seem that perhaps Texas is assimilating Mexicans rather than vice versa.  That may be because Texans have a real culture to assimilate to, while elsewhere the new immigrants merely join in the existing nonculture of “gimme, gimme.”