January 28th, 2013

The Republican Party and immigration reform

Seems to me that, once again, the GOP is between a rock and a hard place.

Oppose this and they lose the Hispanic vote (which already was so instrumental in Obama’s victory). Support it and they probably certify a ton more Democratic voters and assure the GOP’s permanent minority status as a party.

I’m in a hurry today and don’t have time to find the links, but Hispanics not only went for Obama in huge numbers, but in 2012 even the Cuban-American population was less Republican than it used to be. There is no reason on earth to imagine the same wouldn’t be true for those who gain citizenship through this path:

The Senate proposal will probably include four main elements: border enforcement, employer enforcement, handling the future flow of legal immigration (including temporary agriculture workers and high-skilled engineers) and a pathway to citizenship for those who entered the nation illegally. Mr. Obama’s approach will largely echo his 2011 immigration “blueprint,” which he first outlined in a speech in El Paso, and calls for a pathway to citizenship for the more than 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country.

Though all members of the Senate group agree that some pathway to legal residency must be a part of the final proposal, they are still divided on what exactly that route should be. Republican lawmakers are urging that border security be tied to a pathway to citizenship and other requirements like having those who entered illegally go to the back of the line behind immigrants already waiting to enter the country legally, paying fines and back-taxes, and learning English.

Among other things, my guess is that this would be a slippery slope, and that some of these restrictions would end up going by the wayside in due time (and probably not all that much time, either). More:

“You’ve got border security, you’ve got employer verification and you’ve got a temporary worker program that addresses the magnet, so those three things have to go together to address operational control over your border,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, one of the senators mapping out the legislation. “Then you go to the next big thing — the 12 million. How do you deal with the 12 million in a firm, fair way, realizing you can’t put them all in jail and they’re not all going to self-deport?”

Let’s see—one way to deal with them would be to not grant them citizenship—but hey, I’m not a US Senator like Lindsay Graham.

There’s a principle here, among other things, which is that coming here illegally should not be further rewarded. I write “further” because it already is rewarded.

37 Responses to “The Republican Party and immigration reform”

  1. vanderleun Says:

    Well, then it’s not really a “principle.” Is it?

    No. It is just one more way that “Republicans. They thirst for death.”

    Indeed, they have compromised their “principles” so often and so deeply that many who once voted with them have decided to let them die.

  2. neo-neocon Says:

    vanderleun: if they are let die without an effective replacement (and I don’t see a third party as an effective replacement), then conservatism has sealed its own death warrant. How about overhaul rather than death?

    For starters, getting rid of Lindsay Graham? I seem to recall that’s been bandied about for quite a while.

  3. vanderleun Says:

    No chance for an overhaul. Compromised out of existence. And no chance for a purge of various individuals either. Might as well get started on the long march of building a third party.

    As my dentist once said, sadly, “This tooth cannot be saved.”

    If some people want to use the franchise locally, it will continue to function. It has no future nationally. Sad? Yes.

    But “that’s the fact.

    Jack.”

  4. KLSmith Says:

    That’s why he’s called Lindsey Grahamnesty.
    Remember when Rick Perry lost two-thirds of his primary support for giving illegals in-state college tuition? The Republicans don’t, apparently.
    Confirming yet again that they are indeed the Stupid Party. Ignoring all the evidence from Heather McDonald, Sean Trende, etc.
    Latino’s vote for big government and aren’t any more conservative than other groups.
    vanderleun is right.

  5. KLSmith Says:

    Qualification: they have a future nationally. It will just be as a permanent minority party.

  6. DirtyJobsGuy Says:

    We are a small firm that just had to sign up for the INS E-Verify system to support some contracts. We ran all of our current employees through it (no issues) but got a slap on the wrist that we were not supposed to do this!

    Evidently you can only use this for new hires (and not for pre-hire screening). Now we are already supposed to check hires for documents (the I-9) form but to validate those documents by E-verify is verboten for prior hires. It must be that we cannot discriminate against the people who are not supposed to be working in the USA if they supplied us with fake ID! The Dems are really up on enforcing immigration law.

  7. neo-neocon Says:

    vanderleun: I don’t agree.

    What you are suggesting is, in my opinion, a recipe for an even longer stay in the wilderness for conservatives.

    You could design a new bumper sticker: “Conservatives, they thirst for death.”

  8. neo-neocon Says:

    KLSmith: I agree that latinos are not conservative as a rule, and they are trending even less so.

    The practical issue here is how conservatives (not Republicans) can win. In the long long term, I can imagine some ways. In the short and even the somewhat long term, I just don’t see it happening with a third party.

    The biggest problem is (as we’ve said many times before) that time appears to be running out, and once the welfare state expansion is firmly in place, it is very very very difficult to reverse for a whole host of reasons.

    I hold no brief and have no affection for the Republican Party. But I have even less for the Democratic Party.

  9. vanderleun Says:

    Not at all. I think if the people — those that ostensibly are the party — insist on real principles rather than job-securing suckupathons the return from the “wilderness” will be much quicker than you assume.

    What’s really going on with the paycheck addicted pros of the Republican party is a longing for the good old daze.

    In fact the new publisher of the New Republic touches on this kind of thing when he notes in a recent interview:

    “I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. ”

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/201913/obama-one-of-the-biggest-factors-is-going-to-be-how-the-media-shapes-debates/

  10. vanderleun Says:

    Neo,
    You’re saying that we have to hold onto Taiwan so we can choose who rules in China.

    We lost China long, long ago. We have to go back to the mainland.

  11. neo-neocon Says:

    vanderleun: what makes you think I’m disagreeing about the principles part? I’m not. We’re just disagreeing about doing it within the party versus a third party.

  12. vanderleun Says:

    BTW: Paranoids have real enemies….

    Military Helicopters Buzz Downtown Miami Firing Machine Guns

    http://blurbrain.com/military-helicopters-buzz-downtown-miami-firing-machine-guns/

  13. vanderleun Says:

    Look at it this way: In the camps we won’t have to worry about obesity.

  14. KLSmith Says:

    The Republican Party has made it quite clear that conservatives (or those not interested in doing business as usual) aren’t welcome. They are only interested in sharing power and control.
    I would suggest everyone learn Spanish, move away from large cities if you can, and whatever else you can do to to improve your own future.

  15. holmes Says:

    I myself have mixed views on immigration. On the one hand, if you want to try and risk death to get here, you’re perhaps better suited for citizenship than many of our current citizens. I also think there are advantages to lower wages, etc. But, as Milton Friedman noted, we’re not a laissez-faire nation, far from it actually. So we’re inviting people not to be workers but to be wards of the Blue Model, to help keep it propped up.

    I would love to see us increase our legal immigration processes in both amount and efficiency. I also see that someone who has been working here who, other than being here illegally, is not a criminal, is someone we should keep.

    OTOH, proximity to the US geographically shouldn’t mean automatic citizenship; it seems unfair to the rest of the world. We should target more skilled labor groups as well instead of the low educated, lower skilled groups this is targeted at.

    But, enforcement is the key. It’s why the 86 deal was such a disaster and probably extended the Dems in Congress by at least another decade. We’re a sovereign nation and deciding who gets in and who doesn’t is our call. I don’t care what images and connotations a fence evokes; I can’t be responsible for people’s neuroticism. But it won’t happen, and I think on those grounds alone, a deal should be nixed.

    And why the hell is this a priority right now? R’s should pound middle to lower middle class fence voters on this with the South Park “They took yer jobs!” stuff.

  16. vanderleun Says:

    They should, but deep down they’re shallow.

  17. Kurt Says:

    I’d need to research the issue further to find the reference I’m seeking, but as I recall, some polls have shown that “immigration” is not as big an issue for Hispanic voters as the press would have us believe. In other words, saying that Republicans would continue to lose the Hispanic vote if they keep opposing this sort of policy is mistaken, because this is not the main reason they are losing the Hispanic vote. I read some great stuff about this (possibly even through links folks posted here) after the election which pointed out that, despite their affiliation with the Catholic church, some large number of Hispanic voters were pro-choice on abortion, they were for more social programs and didn’t mind big government.

  18. DonS Says:

    I don’t eee anything approaching a viable third party. If not the GOP, I think we will simply be fighting amongst ourselves while Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, Shumer et al get what they want.

  19. DonS Says:

    Kurt,

    The ’86 amnesty didn’t help G. H. W. Bush with hispanic voters in 1988.

    Generally it is true that hispanics are Ok with big government and a nanny state. The MSM will tell them Republicans are racist and they will believe it. They will vote for the welfare state. This is what they do now and they will continue to do so in the near future. They will get rid of their socialcon views before they shed their big government views.

  20. southpaw Says:

    All that’s left for the Republicans to do now is pass gun control, publish their collective suicide note, pack up their offices, and fill out their applications to be Fox News consultants.

  21. vanderleun Says:

    I think there’s currently one opening so they’d better get going.

  22. Occam's Beard Says:

    I wonder when blacks will finally figure out that they are/will be the big losers from illegal immigration?

  23. KLSmith Says:

    Occam’s Beard: never

  24. Occam's Beard Says:

    So it would seem.

    For them to support Democrats is like bulls supporting bullfighting.

  25. parker Says:

    Occam,

    http://tinyurl.com/adab82l

    There has long been no love lost between blacks and latinos. They are in a race for most protected minority.

  26. Don Carlos Says:

    Granting Latino illegals residency/citizenship resembles Yankees moving to North Carolina…which I experienced. Once there, they tilt the balance in unrecoverable ways, and the culture and politics become theirs.

    We should simply say that Latinos (Mexico, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, wherever) don’t grant illegals any rights or support, and until they do, we will not either. Period.

  27. rickl Says:

    Mexico has been a socialist country for 100 years. Many of the immigrants are from the lower classes in Mexico. They’re not only illiterate in English; they’re illiterate in Spanish.

    It is beyond absurd to think that Mexican immigrants will suddenly start reading Locke, Hobbes, and the Federalist Papers. No, the overwhelming majority can be reliably expected to vote for more government largesse.

    The bigger story is how and why the political elites are deliberately transforming the ethnic makeup of American society. I constantly hear predictions that whites will become a minority sometime mid-century, and that it’s inevitable. Bullshit. It’s not inevitable; it’s deliberate policy. We are slowly but surely being dispossessed in our own country. The same thing is happening in Europe, as the native white population is being systematically marginalized. Any white person who criticizes immigration policy is liable to be prosecuted for “hate speech”.

    How come every other race is taught to feel pride in their history and achievements, whether real or imaginary? Only the white race is taught to feel shame, and our extraordinarily rich history is downplayed. Why is there no White History Month, or White Congressional Caucus? Merely suggesting such a thing brings charges of racism. Every other race and ethnic group is allowed to have “national homelands”, but not the white race in Europe and America. We’re supposed to accept “multiculturalism”.

    The puzzling thing is that the political elites promoting this policy are largely white themselves. My guess is that they see themselves as a ruling class, and find non-ruling class whites as too difficult and troublesome to rule. We bitterly cling to our outdated notions of individual liberty. Better to dilute our influence in society by importing vast numbers of Third World peasants who know their place and are under no such illusions.

    It is the greatest act of treason in the history of the world.

  28. Sancho Panza Says:

    ¿qué? ¿cómo?
    ¿dónde están los caramelos?

  29. neo-neocon Says:

    rickl: my main explanation? Guilt. They are trained in it, marinated in it, steeped in it. This is their way to expiate, and prove they are good white people, not like those other bad, racist white people.

  30. Otiose Says:

    As to the issue of whether Latinos are conservative or not, I think Barone in his history of the US – Our Country – approached an answer from a different direction. He noted that all ethnic groups immigrating here tend to vote to the left of center in the first generation and then gradually move to the center and right. This general rule may have become confused because our cultural moorings have become somewhat unhinged – multiculturalism and the breakdown of marriage – but probably has something to it.

    The above plus the need to deny Democrats a subservient voting block and not reward illegal behavior would point towards delaying that pathway to citizenship in any new legislation for as long as possible. Ideally, anyone who came here illegally would only get some legal status without full citizenship and the right to vote, but as a backup delaying citizenship for 10, 15 or even 20 years would work too.

    That would effectively skip that first leaning left generation as a voting force. Intermarriage rates between Latinos and others are high and it just won’t be issue in 15 or 20 years.

    Also key is getting rid of automatic family chain migration in any new legislation. As well intended as the idea may be I’ve seen examples in CA of one marriage to a foreigner triggering upwards of 20-30 new immigrants – close family members.

    If this new bill does not get rid of chain migration then we are not talking about amnesty for 11 or 12 million illegals here, but a great many more. What will happen is that the many who don’t qualify for the amnesty will happen to be related to one close family member who does. It just takes one and so the 11 million could easily trigger a very legal and very large wave of much greater numbers.

    The Democrats not particularly appreciating the remaining cultural anchors we have and placing more value on the votes they hope to get over here, will try to craft the new rules to allow just such a wave. If not done correctly, the 11 million could easily turn into 30 or more million new citizens in our lifetimes who will vote more to shape our country to become like Mexico or other points to the South than anything like present day America. It may not be PC to say so but I prefer that not happen.

    Another couple of points. One is that everyone is so focused on Latinos that they’re forgetting that the future immigration problems may not involve new immigration from points South so much but from the East – in particular China and India and SE Asia, plus Africa and the MidEast. Mexico despite some bad press has been developing/growing very well and with the strengthening of the US energy position etc (US companies are more inclined to look favorably on Mexico as a manufacturing base instead of China), and Mexico’s improvements the truth is an increasing number of Mexicans will likely decline to come up here. However, China and India etc are entering the sweet spot of development where large numbers are becoming comfortable enough to appreciate the boost they could get if they come here. That’s good for us in diverse and proportionate numbers, but if the new bill’s rules don’t include (not PC) caps and ceilings we could see some very large numbers coming our way. Enough to see the newly created Latino-Americans get uncomfortable and demanding barriers.

    Final point. It is essential that as much discretion regarding implementation be kept from the Executive Branch. Decision points probably should be voted on by Congress and not left to the President. Much of any bill will probably have its greatest impact long after our very competent if misguided President has retired to whatever bored lifestyle he can find. Maybe Clinton could give him some pointers. I’ve heard/read that he’s not been bored as he been pursuing what he likes to do more than anything else and enjoying himself immensely.

  31. rickl Says:

    Otiose Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 8:32 pm

    He noted that all ethnic groups immigrating here tend to vote to the left of center in the first generation and then gradually move to the center and right.

    That is utter nonsense. Italians, Irish, and Jews have been reliable Democrat voters for generations, and I see no signs of that changing anytime soon.

  32. Otiose Says:

    Saying it’s ‘utter nonsense’ seems a bit extreme.

    It seemed to make a lot of good sense to me. The first generation off the boat would tend not to have the deeper family and other connections established so more likely to be open to help from governmental sources. Later generations become integrated, more confident, and less open to left leaning politics.

    Something similar happens in connection to women – when they are in established marriages tend to vote more center right. Women left to fend for themselves outside of marriages are much more open to and need help from government sources.

    I’m remembering Barone accurately (I hope) but I think he’s not at all implying that all Irish Americans, Italian Americans, etc vote conservatively. It’s just there’s a tendency to move more to the right vs that initial generation and it’s something noticeable in the voting records. Anyway, I wouldn’t dismiss his observation so lightly.

    There’s also the counterforce at work across all ethnic groups of the government handing out free stuff to buy political support. Free stuff includes of course money, but also preferential treatment for jobs (affirmative action quotas) especially in government jobs, positions in schools, loans, citizenship, and welfare payments. One effect of this is to break down the family interdependency which in turn forces individuals to look more to the government.

  33. parker Says:

    ¿dónde están los caramelos?

    Is or are, a big difference in iglesia. Its a matter of singular or plural. We anglophones are subtle. Our dictionary is bigger than your dictionary ;-)

  34. Southpaw Says:

    Parker- I, that is sancho, apologizes for his bad Spanish. He is having no good luck with it. Couldn’t think of a word that meant “goodies”.

  35. rickl Says:

    Sorry, Otiose, I didn’t mean to jump down your throat.

    Maybe it’s just where I live, but I’d say the majority of the ethnic groups I mentioned are solid Democrat, long after their ancestors immigrated.

    I’ve also read that the children of Cuban immigrants are much more liberal than their parents. I can only imagine how their parents must feel about that.

  36. thomass Says:

    “I would suggest everyone learn Spanish, move away from large cities if you can, and whatever else you can do to to improve your own future.”

    Spanish is also good just for having more options for leaving the US. There are some countries in central and south America that are pretty open to Americans moving to their countries.

    I’d also stock a lot of food and water. If things go bad the distribution systems go first. Then everyone figures out it is a weapon to use against the other side and deliveries are blocked on purpose.

  37. thomass Says:

    vanderleun Says:

    “I think there’s currently one opening so they’d better get going.”

    I think your supposed to throw a sharp stick in the middle of them before saying that.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge